Monthly Update for June 2017 - 2017 Ford Escape

Comments

• legacygt Member Posts: 599

  July 2017

  Thank you for pointing out the "split personality" of the ecoboost engine in this Escape. This is the advantage of a well-matched turbo charged engine. 2.0L with a turbo is perfect for this car. The engine is big enough to motivate the vehicle under leisurely driving without leaning too heavily on the turbo. But when more grunt is needed, the turbo is there to provide it. You have the weight and economy of the smaller engine with the power of a larger one as needed. But not every manufacturer is matching engines this well. Most of them, including Ford are going with undersized engines that lean heavily on the turbo even when driven in a more relaxed way. The result is the smaller engine consumes as much fuel as a larger one and consumers never see the mpg shown on the window sticker. A 2.0L turbo is perfect for the Escape (I bet its efficiency is as good or better iin real world driving than the 1.5L). A 2.0L turbo is not a good match in an Explorer or and XC90 or a Q7.

  1
• canddmeyer Member Posts: 410

  July 2017

  Nice write-up. I have a feeling the Escape will replace my 4Runner. If I didn't want the horsepower I'd opt for the CR-V.

  1
• darthbimmer Member Posts: 606

  July 2017

  Glad to see this vehicle can beat its EPA estimates when driven gently. I agree with @legacygt's analysis on how this is due the displacement being appropriately matched to the vehicle.

  1
• pde3056 Member Posts: 1

  August 2017

  I am concerned that MY 2017 `S' came equipped with a 2.5L I-VCT engine, which I cannot find mentioned ANYWHERE? My MPG seems to be a tad flaky-weird at 20.9-city and perhaps 24 hwy. BUT! 2.5L?

  0
• christyboucher Member Posts: 4

  December 2017

  "The Week-end Warrior"??? Really? It's more a soccer mom dream come true. I seriously miss the old generation that actually looked like a truck and was available with a V6 and a manual gearbox.

  0