Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
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."
When pulling in the driveway my dash showed 35.8 mpg.............
Booo Ya !!!
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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*.
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!
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 ......................
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.
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
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.
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 !!!
The Volt is an amazing car. Lots of incentives and rebates too. Not looking back. Not sure if I'll buy a Ford again.
My FWD highway is always inj the 30's MPG.
Even a few weeks ago got a 38.1 MPG
BTW I have a Titanium AWD and I'm getting about 25 MPG (60/40 Hwy/City).
I am curious if your 2.0 was FWD or AWD?
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"?
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.
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)
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.
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..
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..
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:
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.
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
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)