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

24567…13

Comments

  • fortherockfortherock Member Posts: 6
    FYI on the EPA Numbers...

    Hyundai, Kia to pay 900,000 owners for overstating mileage on window stickers

    http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/hyundai-kia-pay-900-000-owners-overstatin- g-mileage-125024437.html

    Quote...
    "While the Environmental Protection Agency sets the testing procedures that automakers must use to measure fuel economy, it relies on the companies to self-report accurate claims.

    The EPA began investigating the mileage on Hyundai models after scores of complaints from customers that their cars weren't meeting the window sticker mileage estimates. In July, Hyundai was sued in California by consumer groups accusing the automaker of misleading customers by stating only the 40 mpg highway ratings in its ads."
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    Still doing great! Took a road trip of 310 miles RT today mostly highway ( 90 %) at 55 mph!
    When pulling in the driveway my dash showed 35.8 mpg.............
    Booo Ya !!!
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    fortherock,
    Just for comparison sake, try a tank of Premium fuel (91, no higher) that you can confirm is pure gasoline, with no Ethanol. I don't know how much difference you will see, if any, but it would be an interesting experiment for a few extra dollars. My Escape 2.0 FWD just rolled off the truck this morning. I take delivery next week and will be posting my MPG's as soon as I have meaningful data. I don't mean to "harp" on the Ethanol thing too much, but the EPA does state that their tests are based on 100% gasoline and that Ethanol content will reduce mileage. I don't make this up, I just get it from the EPA website.
  • fortherockfortherock Member Posts: 6
    automelon48,

    I did actually use Premium fuel once and did notice an average around 25mpg highway, the only time the car went above 23mpg. I'll try again. I'll also double check if the Premium didn't have 10% ethanol.

    Yet, my response is still the same. If the sticker on the window says 21/24/28, then the numbers should be close - especially for the city number. To be 20% less puts this car at the same mileage as the previous V6. The whole point of this new Ecoboost engine is better fuel economy. It's Fords main marketing point and why they no longer offer the V6. Yet, based on what I've read on this great forum, sounds like it varies from car to car - so there is hope something can be tuned to improve fuel economy. Love to hear what you get!!!
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited November 2012
    Many years ago high compression engines needed/required premium fuel. But only when the effective compression ratio approached the base/native compression ratio. Nowadays the engine ECU simply enriches the mixture slightly if the effective compression is reached.

    So, unless you are of the "boy-racer" mentality or simply a leadfoot, regular fuel will yeild just as good FE as premium and at lower pump cost.
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    wwest
    I agree with you, but in many places the only way to get pure gas, it to buy Premium (91). I suggest it ONLY if it ensures that it is Ethanol free. The EPA tests the vehicles on 100% gas, so the only fair comparison is for us to test with 100% gas. I live in Western Canada and some stations will sell Regular 87 without Ethanol and others only guarantee that their 91 is Ethanol free. Shell Canada says on their website that all of their Premium pumps are Ethanol free.
    Hey, it's worth a try.
  • mole_muggermole_mugger Member Posts: 1
    I have a 2013 2.0 AWD Titanium with 3200 miles. I used 87 octane on my first two fill-ups and was getting poor gas mileage (21.3 mpg combined). I switched to premium (91 octane) and saw immediate improvement in gas mileage (26.3 mpg). For my last 3 tankfuls I used 87 octane. My combined mileage with 87 octane is 22.4 mpg. Don't know the ethanol content of either. Regardless of the economics, environmentally it is worth the added cost and I will go back to premium fuel when available.
  • neile457neile457 Member Posts: 65
    all 91 octane doesn't have No ethanol, you have to make sure that it doesn't. in most areas, you can find no octane in any grades, though it's getting harder to find. No ethanol gas does improve your gas mileage, and it usually is 15% higher in price. I had been putting no ethanol in my 300C, but it's getting so hard to find, I no longer do. But my gas mileage averaged 23 mpg compared to 20 with ethanol.
  • woodinvawoodinva Member Posts: 19
    Hate to inform you but the EPA does its Mileage tests with 100% Gasoline
    They do NOT, repeat Do NOT use Ethanol in their testing for mileage!!!
    Premium Gasoline Does contain up to 10% ethanol as well.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml

    Check for yourself about 3/4 down the page.
  • woodinvawoodinva Member Posts: 19
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml
    Do EPA fuel economy estimates account for the use of ethanol blends that are common today?

    No. The EPA fuel economy tests use 100 percent gasoline, and no adjustments are made to account for ethanol. Most conventional vehicles using E10 (10 percent ethanol) will experience a 3 to 4 percent reduction in fuel economy.

    Why don't EPA fuel economy tests use ethanol-blended gasoline now that most gasoline contains ethanol?

    EPA fuel economy tests are conducted according to Federal testing regulations which require 100 percent gasoline. These regulations could be changed, but changing them would be somewhat problematic. While it is common for gasoline pumps to allow for up to 10 percent ethanol, the actual amount of ethanol blended into the gasoline varies greatly, and fuel blending requirements vary by state. Changing the test methods would also make it difficult to compare vehicles tested with ethanol blends with those tested with straight gasoline. So, without a national standard for blended regular gasoline and a Federal mandate to change the test fuel used, the EPA will not change the test fuel.

    ------------------------
    Now do you feel you have been LIED to?
  • woodinvawoodinva Member Posts: 19
    Because Ethanol destroys Boat engines and their Gas lines and other power equipment, Therefore the EPA allows marinas and some Landscapers (professional) know where to buy Ethanol free fuel as well as it destroys their power equipment as well even when treated with marine grade stabil!
  • sportclimbersportclimber Member Posts: 5
    I usually drive in the "Intelligent 4x4 screen" to see how much power is being applied to the front wheels. I have noticed that ALL the tires have power applied during takeoff and to about 200 or 300 yards and maybe farther (getting on it and sneaking up on it makes no difference).
    I was wondering how many of us getting 22-23 mpg are seeing power applied to ALL wheels during this time...
    I brought this up to my service tech and he didn't have a good answer yet.

    Passed 2000 miles and climbing, regular fuel, still no better than 22 to 23 mpg 60/40 split.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    That's a great observation!! I see exactly the same thing, where all 4 wheels are involved for a little while every time you accelerate from low speeds, and it seems to taper off after a little while (10 secs or so?).

    Does that make any sense? I'd expect that kind of AWD system to be involved only when there's wheel slippage, not all the time on acceleration, especially on super smooth takeoffs?

    Doing a lot of stop and go in heavy traffic, it seems like more than 50% of the distance I cover is with all 4 wheels getting power, which may help explain my abysmal city mileage?

    I'm also very curious to see others chime in!
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    edited November 2012
    I'm getting 24-26 mpg routinely right now, and mine does this too. It probably does contribute to the extra-low stop-and-go city fuel economy you guys are seeing. I just have enough non-stop-and-go cruising to offset the effect (longer distances before lights, highway and interstate cruising, keeping it at 65 or under where possible).

    I feel for you, if this is the case, and if you have no way of avoiding all the stop-and-go driving to improve your fuel economy. On the other hand, I quite like the feel when taking off, especially compared to most FWD-only vehicles I've driven. The Escape feels much more like most RWD or 4WD vehicles I've owned, in that I don't get any steering wheel tugging (even lightly) as I take off. Even under heavier acceleration I don't notice torque steer, though I've read at least one post somewhere from a 2013 FWD Escape owner that *has*.
  • h3ll3rh3ll3r Member Posts: 16
    So it's probably the way it's been programmed and all of them probably behave that way... For sure I'm also happy with how the car feels and drives and all, I've never felt any torque steer either!

    However, while I'm just an end-user and not a car engineer, this 4WD system doesn't seem optimized enough to me. I've read online that: "Ford explained the system analyzes data from 25 external signals, including wheel speed, accelerator pedal position and steering wheel angle, assessing road conditions and driver input 20 times faster than the blink of an eye."

    Well obviously, there's no need for 10-15 seconds of full 4WD when doing a straight, smooth, gentle low-acceleration takeoff with no wheel spin, in city traffic! And this happens all the time.

    I fully understand the benefits when driving harder, or on slippery surfaces, etc, then performance becomes part of the equation and we'd want all the 4WD help we can get...

    Hoping that this is software-upgradable stuff that can be further optimized down the road!
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    Took another 96 mile trip today! 85% HIGHWAY. Easy on start ups found the sweet spot to be at 53 mph !! Very excited with todays results of 38.1 MPG!
    Driving habits dictate the mileage... Faster = More Fuel . IMO mpg has nothing to do with octane or ethanol. I used regular gas with 10% ethanol.
    Love my little : 1.6L Ecoboost FWD ...................... :):):)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Hey everyone,

    My in-laws purchased a 2013 Escape 1.6L EcoBoost AWD and are seeing terrible fuel efficiency. There is 1,300 miles on the car and they are getting 19.4mpg. I know that "your mileage will vary" and there is a "break-in period". I'm in the car business and have been for many years and I have never seen a car so far off the mark before. They drive about 50/50 city/highway.

    Wondering if any of you experiencing this type of efficiency have seen an increase in mileage over time, without using Premium fuel. Thanks.
  • dobaddobad Member Posts: 1
    I purchased a 2013 Ford Escape FWD with the 1.6 L motor. Driving like Miss Daisy, mostly highway, cruise at 70 mph, my first 87 octane tank scored 19 mpg US. My second tank appears to be getting 20 mpg, neither of which are impressive. I had a 1990 Ford Aerostar which did that well, and have a Saturn SL1 which gets 40 mpg so I know my driving is smooth. I know someone who bought the Mazda CX5 and is getting close to EPA estimates on the first tank, driving the same speed or slightly faster. Driving 53 mph is not reasonable to me either, not safe or practical where I live. There may be a number of used 2013 Ford Escapes on the market within the next year.
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    edited November 2012
    Sorry ! 70 MPH = MORE FUEL ............
    I have the same 1.6 L FWD and just a week ago at speeds 53 - 55 MPH got 38.1 MPG !!! :):):)

    I'm OLD & SLOW and save $$$$$$$$$$$$ LOL LOL
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    I took a 400mi round trip within the first 2 weeks of owning my 1.6L fwd se, fully loaded with dogs and camping gear, got 27mpg driving 70-80 on the way out and 31mpg driving 65-75 on the way back, all on 87 octane. The biggest gripe I have is that I now have 2 less gallons for driving range as the 2010 Escape I had (13 gallons vs 15 gallons of useable gas). 27mpg in the old one was good enough for 400mi, now 27mpg gets me 350mi on 1 tank. :cry:
  • flaviofflaviof Member Posts: 4
    I am having the same issues..... in the city 13.4 mpg and on the road only 24 mpg....
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    My in-laws took it in to Ford for an oil change, they like doing it very early for the first one, and the Ford service writer said it could take up to 7,000 miles to break in.....dios mio!
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    Now 2 weeks old, I have a bit of meaningful mileage info to pass along.
    I have put 3 tanks of gas through the Escape 2.0 FWD so far.

    Tank 1) 20.7 MPG or 11.3L/100km 50 city/50 Hwy but LOTS of idling time and VERY snowy roads
    Unknown fuel as it came with a full tank at vehicle delivery.
    Tank 2) 24.3 MPG or 9.7L/100km 70pct city/30 Hwy temp -8 to +8C, Shell 91
    Tank 3) 26.2 MPG or 8.9L/100km 20 city/80 Hwy temp -13C to -9C, Shell 91

    Notes: Hwy cruising speed 66Mph or 108kph SNOW TIRES installed since day 1. Cold weather conditions, altitude 3300 feet above sea level.
    I chose Shell 91, not necessarily for the octane, but to ensure I did not have Ethanol (for test purposes) I look forward to trying some 87 in the future for comparison purposes.
    On tank 3 while I was driving on the hwy, the display showed 29.4 MPG or 7.9 L/100km
    On tank 1 there was probably 1Hour or more of idling between the dealer delivery demo and me sitting in the vehicle learning everything there is to learn with My Ford Touch etc.

    I calculated mileage at the pump to compare with the vehicle display. All 3 tanks have been within 2% of the display which is very impressive. My last vehicle display was out 10%+

    It is really easy to enjoy the Boost more than the Eco. If I drive without a lot of Boost it is quite reasonable on fuel. If I enjoy the Boost, then I get what I paid for. (240HP and 270lb/ft) Nice.
    It is nice to have the option of economy or fun. It's an ongoing argument that my brain has with my right foot.

    This vehicle is rated 22/30, so given the conditions I think my mileage is right in line with EPA estimate. I will add more info as time goes by.
  • flaviofflaviof Member Posts: 4
    I went to the dealer to complain about the car and to fix the adjustment of the front door (I received the car with another problem + the fuel consumption).
    Ford give me a rented car (a hyundai accent 2013) to replace my Ford Escape. I was upset to receive a sub compact to replace an SUV, in another hand I was happy to get 33mpg vs 15mpg with the Escape in the same condition (The dealer said that I am getting poor millage because I do not know how to drive !!).
    I am looking forward to see if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will do the same as they did with Hyundai and Kia (Korean manufacture's)

    "The problem was discovered after compliance testing in a lab run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed that randomly selected Hyundai and Kia vehicles were not meeting their advertised 40 miles-per-U.S.-gallon highway fuel consumption rating. Hyundai attributed the incorrect ratings to “procedural errors” at a testing facility in South Korea.
    "

    I will start to put some videos in the YOUTUBE showing the real millage of the brand new 2013 Ford Escape.
    I think it will be a good opportunity to show to other customers that this is not a fuel efficient vehicle !!!
  • rpmurarpmura Member Posts: 9
    I couldn't stand it anymore. I didn't want to keep paying for a car that I didn't want. It didn't get the mileage I was expecting. I bit the bullet and traded it in for a lease on a 2013 Chevy Volt. It's a great car! Like night and day compared to the Escape. It's a shame that Ford marketed this car for the mileage. It wasn't exactly the smartest financial move I've ever made. It didn't seem like I was going to get anywhere with Ford. Besides, it had some weird transmission quirk too. Took about 5 seconds to engage when changing directions. Ford said it was still in "learning mode".
    The Volt is an amazing car. Lots of incentives and rebates too. Not looking back. Not sure if I'll buy a Ford again.
  • dizneydizney Member Posts: 19
    AWD must be the problem IMO !
    My FWD highway is always inj the 30's MPG.
    Even a few weeks ago got a 38.1 MPG :)
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    rpmura, do you mind telling how much of a hit you took? I'm thinking the same thing that you actually did & am concerned how much of a "hit" I would be looking at? I'm thinking about 2k from what I now owe would be acceptable for me. Thanks
  • tim156tim156 Member Posts: 308
    I agree, even though I have a FWD 2.0L, with temps in the low 20's I'm still around 24.9 combined and if I can get it to 25.0 and keep it there, I'm pleased.
  • johnnyumajohnnyuma Member Posts: 54
    Really? You're comparing an Escape to a Chevy Volt? That makes no sense. Why didn't you consider a Chevy Eqinox? Why would you even shop for a SUV if you really wanted a plug in hybrid?

    BTW I have a Titanium AWD and I'm getting about 25 MPG (60/40 Hwy/City).
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    SEL AWD 20.l EcoBoost, right at 4000 miles, still getting between 25-26 mpg (also 60/40). I haven't bothered resetting the second trip display since buying the car, and it is showing 25.8 mpg right now. As we've said (lots of times before), these engines drink the gas heavily in stop and go city traffic (speeds 35mph and under, frequent stoplights). Even worse 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..).
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    rpmura
    I am curious if your 2.0 was FWD or AWD?
  • johnnyumajohnnyuma Member Posts: 54
    I'm at 1700 miles. The owner's manual mentions re: fuel economy "a more accurate measurement is obtained after 2000 - 3000 miles." Have you noticed an improvement in MPG in the last 1000 miles. If so about how much (ie as much as 5 or 10%)?
  • foxdaredfoxdared Member Posts: 5
    I gotta say, I live in Seattle and commute 35miles each way to work. Half city and half highway. Got 2800 miles in 2 months. I adjusted my driving and even had my wife who is an uber light driver do some long trips. We are getting max 22mpg. With reg driving 20mpg. My tank empty light comes on at about 260miles. Driving a titanium 2.0 AWD, using costco 87 octane gas. Not loading the car at all. I am curious how people are getting 25mpg, even 24mpg.

    My ford dealer checked the car out and told me everything was fine. Tire pressures checked. So im unsure how real world are those real world numbers unless there is a ecoboost button I have yet to discover?

    Or like Hyundai, there are some vehicles with "procedural errors"?
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    Seattle is fairly hilly, right? I bet you're tapping into the turbo boost a lot without even realizing it going up hills? My best guess.
  • bullitt007bullitt007 Member Posts: 1
    I rented a 2013 AWD SEL 2.0 Escape and put about 3,000 miles on it over the past 2 weeks. (it had about 4,500 miles on it when I got it)

    I drove from Colorado to Wisconsin...around Wisconsin for a week and then back to Colorado. 95% highway driving.

    When all was said and done, I averaged just over 23mpg. I was not happy at all. 23 mpg for highway driving? My wife's 2012 V-6 Escape will get 24 or 25 on the highway easily.

    Very, very disappointed. Nothing Eco about the EcoBoost. I hate to say it, because I love Ford...but this isn't good at all.
  • tcl1999tcl1999 Member Posts: 2
    Hey Aviboy97, I've got a question for you on the Mazda6 hesitation issue. I know it's been awhile since you dealt with this, but did you ever get your issue resolved? Last I saw you were looking at replacing a wiring harness and throttle to fix it. Did that work? I'm a new 6 i SV owner facing the same issue. Sorry about the thread hijack, couldn't think of a better way to get in touch with you.
  • flaviofflaviof Member Posts: 4
    I have just returned from the Gas Station (again !!!)....

    292 km = 47 liters (90% in the city, no traffic - Montreal - Canada)
    14.6 mpg !!!!

    This is the reality of the new Ford Escape 2013 1.6L AWD

    If I had a chance I will return this car to the dealer !! Very disappointed with Ford (I will take a Toyota again)
  • tim156tim156 Member Posts: 308
    edited December 2012
    That's what I would do, get rid of the Escape ASAP. Get yourself set up in a Toyota, Hyundai or better yet, a Kia. If you choose one of those, you'll get great mpg's and have no worries.
  • automelon48automelon48 Member Posts: 105
    Every now and then, someone posts that they are getting poor mileage. I am baffled by this. I have a 2.0 FWD and the worst tank I have seen (out of 5 tanks) is 20.6Mpg or 11.3L/100km.
    This was my first tank, with lots of idling, snowy/slushy/cold driving conditions, snow tires and 70pct city driving! (Alberta in November)

    flaviof, I have some questions, and perhaps some things you can check.
    What pressure are your tires at?
    Have you reset the "trip time" on your Escape since you bought it? It would be interesting to see how much time the engine has run, when compared to the distance you drive.
    Perhaps try resetting your trip time and your trip odometer the next time you fill-up, just to calculate your average speed.

    How quickly do you accelerate and brake? Giving these turbos 1/4 or 1/3 throttle will generate a lot of power, very quickly.
    What kind of gas do you buy? Is it "discount-gas" or gas which contains 10% Ethanol? Try finding some high quality gas and try to find it without Ethanol.

    Is your A/C or climate control set to "Auto"? Is your Defrost on a lot? This will run the A/C compressor and use extra fuel for sure.

    If you are doing everything right, and driving conservatively, you should get better mileage. Either that or there is a problem with the vehicle.

    With so many people getting the expected (EPA) mileage from their Escapes, we know that the vehicles are capable of good mileage. There must be another variable that affects the results for some owners.
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    I've got over 4800 on mine now, and it's showing 26.1 overall (I don't reset the Trip 2 information). I'm used to seeing 25-27, but the last four tanks or so have all shown 27-29. Of course, I've also taken to using ethanol-free fuel (mixed between regular and high octane).

    I'm not personally baffled by some not getting the same fuel economy. I work to get it (not a hypermiler, but taking it easier than most). As I've said many times before, if I drive my car in Harrisonburg (JMUville) Virginia much at all, the constant stoplights and slow speeds all quickly drop the fuel economy numbers, just watching the 'avg' reading. These cars are very sensitive to anything but cruising, so attempt to drive them accordingly..
  • reniprenip Member Posts: 1
    I got the 2013 Escape 2.0L AWD and I must say the gas mileage is so bad I have never driven a car that uses this much fuel.. I put 47L in it and I only made it 245km that's 19.1L/100km WTF.. I might as well be driving a hummer. I mostly do city driving but even then it shouldn't be this bad. This is terrible!! This last trip will get me a little farther because I also did some highway this time but even now I went 270km and the fuel light is about to come on. :(

    i understand what they advertise is the average and I wouldn't be complaining if it was using a little above average but this is just insane. I should have bought the honda CRV :( So after all the extras I'm out 40 grand. Let me tell you.. this car won't get us far in the zombie apocalypse..
  • rpmurarpmura Member Posts: 9
    Nope. Not comparing. Just like the Volt a whole lot better. Tired of driving a 13 mpg Escape. Worse mileage of any car I've owned, including 2 six cylinder Nissan Pathfinders. Drove cars the same way. Even drove the Escape much more conservatively to try to improve mileage, but no go. I was so disappointed in the car that I couldn't bear making the payments, so I got a Volt. Of course I wasn't comparing them. They're totally different cars!
  • rpmurarpmura Member Posts: 9
    tinycadon, it was worse than that. I took quite a loss on the 2013 Escape. I just didn't want to keep paying for it anymore. I'm much happier with the car I have now. Not the same kind of car (Chevy Volt), but I love it. Very disappointed in the Escape.
  • rpmurarpmura Member Posts: 9
    automelon48, it was a FWD.
  • mikeo56mikeo56 Member Posts: 16
    It sure seems like the FWD Escapes get a whole lot better gas mileage than the AWD
    I do not hear many, if any, people complain about 1.6's or 2.0's FWD models, only the AWD
    Right now I have a AWD 2.0 loaner till next week I am getting 18 around town. :(
    It will be interesting when I get my FWD 1.6 back from the recall and drive it for the 1st time. :surprise:
    I signed the contract, than came the recall, my car arrived, but they did not let me drive it off the lot cause of the recall. :confuse:
  • tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    Ugh!!! I just talked to a dealer yesterday who told me Ford is now giving $2,500 credit to the Escape owners who want to trade them in for another Ford. So basically they're admitting the car is a lemon, I wish I had just kept the '10 Escape I had, what a HUGE mistake!!!
  • mikeo56mikeo56 Member Posts: 16
    Ford’s 2.0-Liter EcoBoost Engine Wins Second Consecutive Ward’s 10 Best Engines Trophy; GT500 Engine Also Honored

    Powerful, fuel-efficient 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected EcoBoost® engine wins for exceptional performance in Ford Taurus and Focus ST

    Shelby GT500 5.8-liter V8 –the world’s highest-horsepower regular production V8 engine – also a winner

    No competitor has won more 10 Best Engines awards than Ford in the last five years

    An EcoBoost engine has won a 10 Best Engines trophy every year since launch

    2.0-liter EcoBoost® Four-cylinder Engine | 5.8-liter V8 Engine
    Click to download images.

    DEARBORN, Mich., Dec. 12, 2012 – Ford Motor Company’s fuel efficient 2.0-liter EcoBoost® four-cylinder engine is one of two Ford engines this year to win a highly coveted 10 Best Engines trophy from the editors of WardsAuto World.

    The 662-horsepower 5.8-liter V8 – the world’s most powerful production V8 engine – in the 2013 Shelby GT500 has also won a 10 Best Engines trophy.

    Each fall, Ward’s editors evaluate the latest powertrains from the world’s automakers in rigorous testing to determine which engines deliver the best blend of performance, value, fuel efficiency and refinement.

    Ford has won eight 10 Best Engines awards in the last five years – more than any other domestic automaker and tied with Germany’s BMW for most wins.

    The 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected engine, produced in Valencia, Spain, is Ford’s global workhorse EcoBoost engine, powering everything from the rear-wheel-drive Falcon sedan in Australia to vans in Europe and the high-performance Focus ST. Last year, the 2.0-liter won a 10 Best Engines award in the Ford Edge crossover.

    “The EcoBoost Taurus and Focus ST really show just how versatile and capable the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine is,” said Joe Bakaj, Ford vice president of Powertrain Engineering.

    “The Focus ST is the first performance application for EcoBoost, and it really delivers the goods,” he added. “The 2.0-liter EcoBoost in the Taurus replaces a V6 and delivers great all-around performance, along with best-in-class 32 mpg on the highway.”

    In the Focus ST, the 2.0-liter cranks out 252 horsepower and 270 lb.-ft. of torque. Magazine reviews have shown Focus 0-60 mph acceleration in the mid-six-second range. In Taurus, the 2.0-liter engine has a completely different demeanor. It is exceptionally smooth and quiet and provides outstanding performance and best-in-class large car fuel economy at 32 mpg highway.

    “There are lots of 2.0-liter turbocharged engines out there now,” said Drew Winter, editor in chief of WardsAuto World magazine. “What impresses us most this year is EcoBoost’s versatility. It is very entertaining as a performance car engine in the Focus ST. But what really amazes us is that it also is a perfect match for the two-ton Taurus family sedan. Even loaded down with passengers, the engine delivers all the power needed and better fuel economy than a V6.”

    The 5.8-liter V8 engine in the Shelby GT500 impressed Ward’s staff not just with its incredible 662 horsepower, but also its efficiency. The GT500 is not subject to a gas guzzler tax, and is rated at 15 mpg city and 24 mpg highway.

    “Very few engines deliver the balance of power and fuel efficiency the 5.8-liter does,” said Jamal Hameedi, GT500 chief nameplate engineer. “The team spent countless hours dyno testing, tweaking and calibrating to make sure this engine would deliver the high-level power and performance Shelby customers expect. But they also took into account the reality of today’s volatile fuel prices. All SVT engineers are very proud of the GT500, its engine, and the responsible fuel efficiency it delivers.”

    Added Winter: “The 5.8-liter V8 in the Shelby GT500 is the world’s most powerful production V8 engine, yet it is so efficient at squeezing power from every drop of gasoline that there is no gas guzzler tax. It actually delivers better fuel economy than many engines with a fraction of the horsepower. Plus it squeaks in under our $55,000 price cap. That’s pretty incredible.”

    Since launch in summer 2009, Ford has sold more than 520,000 EcoBoost-equipped vehicles globally. Ford’s global family of EcoBoost engines consists of the award-winning 1.0-liter three-cylinder (coming to North America next year in the 2014 Fiesta); the 1.6-liter available in Escape and Fusion; the 2.0-liter available in Focus ST, Fusion, Taurus, Edge, Escape and Explorer; and the 3.5-liter V6 in the Taurus SHO, an engine also available in the F-150, Flex, Explorer Sport and Lincoln vehicles.

    EcoBoost combines downsizing with turbocharging, direct fuel injection and variable valve timing. Ford holds more than 125 patents for its EcoBoost technologies. This year’s 10 Best Engines award is the third for an EcoBoost engine. Last year, the 2.0-liter in the Edge won, while the 3.5-liter in the Taurus SHO won in 2010.
  • johnnyumajohnnyuma Member Posts: 54
    Lol! Really dude? Quote: "It's a great car! Like night and day compared to the Escape." Why did you buy a SUV/CUV when you really wanted a plug in hybrid? :confuse: Jus' sayin' makes no sense to me. But it's your money throw it around if you want to.
  • mf15mf15 Member Posts: 158
    edited December 2012
    This is all interesting to me,we have a 2010 escape v6 awd,I get about 26 mpg
    at 75 mph,this is of course long highway runs.
    For the price they are charging,MSRP anyway this does not look to good for
    Ford once the word on the poor mileage gets out,besides all the recalls.
    One piece of advice if you are looking at a new car,test drive it,reset the trip computer,take an extended high speed run,if that particular car is not at or near the stated MPG,try a different one. If none are close then,your on your own as to whether you want to buy it.
    The dealers have been telling people for years the mileage will get better with use, never found that to be the case,have owned many new cars. I get the same on this escape as when it was new,my last actual car was an 07 TL
    got 33 on the road,when new and when I turned it in. Are these little turbos different,perhaps.
    Old Mike
  • usa1fanusa1fan Member Posts: 68
    Good idea, except for the idea about comparing each for extended high speed runs. That part makes sense only for those who routinely drive that way. The rest are better served by driving them in similar conditions to the way they usually drive (ie.- all those complaining about city fuel economy should drive in similar conditions and as aggressively / or not, as they usually drive).

    From what I can see, the 2.0L AWD I have right now will likely break 30mpg on all-highway driving, if I drive it right. In regular highway driving, the V6 can probably average about the same as the 2.0L, but probably NOT get the same 'highest' that I could. In town (heavy city, heavy right foot), the 2.0L, and from what everyone here's saying, even the 1.6L, most likely suck down a lot more fuel than non-turbocharged vehicles.

    BTW, no offense, but ANY hybrid had better @#$@ well do MUCH better than these, especially in mixed or all-city driving! That's the whole point of the hybrid- where ICE-powered vehicles are least efficient, the hybrids shouldn't be. So if a Volt doesn't, someone bought a lemon or wasted a lot of extra dough. (I personally like the Volt too, but different cars, different classes, different expectations, different costs, just plain different- so no real comparison is possible)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles