Ask the Car People.SM


2013 Ford Escape Gas Mileage - READ ONLY

565 messages,  Last post on May 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You are in the Ford Escape Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Escape, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV

Please note the engine, AWD/FWD, type of gas you buy, and something about the type of driver you are and your driving conditions (city/highway, commuting) when you post about your mileage.

Messages Page 2 of 57

#11 of 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 [h3ll3r] by usa1fan

Oct 19, 2012 (3:40 pm)

Replying to: h3ll3r (Oct 19, 2012 7:50 am)
I've noticed that ours seems to be getting a little better with every fill up. Of course, I can't say for certain it's break in that's causing the improvement, as I intentionally drove 'normally' (that is, like everyone else) for the first two tanks, where I average around 24.6 and 25.5 mpg respectively. The past two tanks were both with me attempting to keep my speed at or under 65 (despite the 70 mph interstate limits around here), though my off-highway driving is pretty much the same as the other two, and my fuel economy was 26.3 for one and 27.4 for the other. The latest tank (as in now) is showing signs of hitting 29 (DIC indicated), and will most likely be around 28 when I get to filling it up (1/4 into the tank right now). I reset the primary trip (trip 1) each fill up, but have left the second trip meter alone, so that I could get a feel for the overall fuel economy too, and it was reading 25.7 at last glance.
 
Granted, all of these numbers are from the car. I have actually hand calculated twice, to find that it was around .5 mpg optimistic each time, but that could as easily be ascribed to it 'lying' to me as to differences in the fill up itself. Even using the same pump every time, I really don't think that the auto cutoff is perfectly accurate. How many times have you had a pump cut off mid-fill and had to start it again, sometimes needing to hold it just to get it to keep going?
 
At any rate, I noticed one other thing today, right after filling up. It reminded me of another post over in the main 2013 forum. A poster there mentioned driving all slow speed stop and go, and getting teens for fuel economy. Without beating them up too bad, that's to be expected. I drove around in downtown Harrisonburg (read: JMUville) for about two hours, at speeds no greater than 35, and with LOTS of stopping for lights, stop signs, and general parking lot traffic (both cars and pedestrians), and my readout hung out between 14.6 and 15.3 until I got out where I could get a continuous cruise going (45+), at which point it picked up quickly. My point being, if you're driving slow speed, stop-and-go, the numbers WILL be lower than the EPA numbers. That's where a hybrid (true hybrid, Prius, Ford C-Max, etc.) shines, since it will run all electric. There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.
 
Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.

#12 of 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 [usa1fan] by bigmclargehuge

Oct 19, 2012 (3:57 pm)

Replying to: usa1fan (Oct 19, 2012 3:40 pm)
There's most likely nothing wrong with the car.
  
Results are largely dependent on where you drive, how fast you take off, how fast you go, and all the other driver-determined quirks. It isn't too hard to suck the economy down to the low-20's, even for me, and if you live in some areas, it might be hard to get above that, based on traffic and terrain.
 
Amen to that.
 
For S's and G's I actually went back to the Ford dealership (pretending I didn't own one) and drove another Ecoboost.
 
It got better mileage than mine for the short drive, and I seem to be one of the 'lucky' ones blessed with good mileage in my Ecoboost.
 
The Ford folks got the EPA numbers because the EPA number are achievable, otherwise the EPA would not give it to them. Key point is the text they are required to include with these figures:
 
YOUR MILEAGE WILL VARY

#14 of 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 [usa1fan] by h3ll3r

Oct 19, 2012 (6:49 pm)

Replying to: usa1fan (Oct 19, 2012 3:40 pm)
Thanks for your comments. Yeah, it really seems to be the stop and go at low speeds (traffic) that kills the mileage for me. I baby the throttle like there's no tomorrow, in an effort to get more decent numbers. Very smooth takeoffs, try to brake as little as possible, etc... If I can drive without traffic in the city, going a steady 35mph, then I can get around 20-22 mpg... but as soon as there's stop and go traffic, it's nearly impossible to get close to decent mileage. I don't do much highway, but when I did, it seemed to hover around 24-26 mpg.
 
I do exactly like you, reset Trip1 on each drive, but use Trip2 for tanks. I've also recently starting using Fuelly to track accurately (although like you say, really hard to trust the auto-cutoff!!)
 
On this tank, I've put premium (91 octane) without ethanol (previous tanks were regular with up to 10% ethanol, which is pretty much the norm here in Ontario). So far the results seem a bit better... I'll report at the end of this tank.

#15 of 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 [h3ll3r] by dizney

Oct 21, 2012 (8:12 pm)

Replying to: h3ll3r (Oct 19, 2012 6:49 pm)
Ford Escape 2013 1.6 L Eco boost FWD
 
      I am getting great mileage after 800 miles. Have gone on two trips that were both a little over 200 miles each round trip. First averaged 35.5 mpg
Second 35.8 MPG !!!! Much better than my 2009 ford Edge !!!
  Lots of power at highway speeds . On trips as above I used cruise control most of the time at 55 mph. When doing a combo city highway with more city driving my average is 26.8 mpg> Very pleased and will take those numbers any day !!

#16 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83] by jrock83

Oct 22, 2012 (5:18 am)

Replying to: jrock83 (Oct 18, 2012 5:27 am)
500 miles in. Filled up with 87 octane. MPG up to 26.1 as of this morning.
 
I see a lot of people complaining about the mileage (here and elsewhere). Try staying out of the throttle. That will probably help. You have to remember that the ecoboost engines are designed to give you good fuel economy because it combines a small displacement engine for better mileage and a turbocharger for extra power when you need it. So if you drive it properly, keep the tachometer under 2000 rpm, you will see better economy than if you race from stop light to stop light. I say 2000 rpm because I noticed that cruising down the interstate at 65 mph the tach was settled in at about 1500 rpm and while accelerating calmly the transmission seems to shift around 1800. Yeah its fun and the engines are pretty responsive, but doing it will not save gas. Keep in mind you're trying to move 3500-3700 pounds. No easy feat for a small displacement engine. That's where the turbo helps out when its necessary to move the extra bulk at an increased rate. Economy is also highly dependent upon WHERE you live. Higher elevations won't get as good of mileage as someone at sea level. Point is, drive like a formula 1 driver and you'll see bad mileage. Drive calmly and you'll see better mileage.

#18 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83] by h3ll3r

Oct 22, 2012 (1:03 pm)

Replying to: jrock83 (Oct 22, 2012 5:18 am)
Like I said in my previous post, these days, to try to see better results, I'm driving extremely lightly, probably to the point sometimes where it pisses off people behind me. It doesn't seem to be that simple of an explanation.
 
To compare, previous car was a 2010 Kia Soul with the 2.0L, 142hp engine, 5sp manual. I was driving it a lot harder (basically not paying attention to fuel economy and rowing the gears with enthusiasm...)
- Kia: I was getting about 260 miles out of tank of 12.7 gallons
- Ford: I am getting about 235 miles out of tank of 15.1 gallons
Same kind of commute (80% city).
 
Official fuel economy ratings for city driving were:
Kia: 24 mpg
Ford: 22 mpg
(Hwy is 30 mpg for both)
 
Observed:
Kia: 20.5 mpg (I thought it wasn't so great but was OK with it...)
Ford: 15.5 mpg (this is appalling but I'll give it a bit more time)
 
So on paper according to fueleconomy.gov, it's pretty close... but not in real life. Yes I know the Kia was smaller and less powerful and 2WD all but it was rated almost the same, probably due to non-aerodynamic blocky shape, antiquated engine, 5spd tranny. And that doesn't factor in my much more relaxed driving in the Ford.
 
In closing, I'm mid-way with my current tank (no-ethanol 91 octane) and the trip computer projects at apprx 250 miles.....

#20 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r] by jrock83

Oct 23, 2012 (7:06 am)

Replying to: h3ll3r (Oct 22, 2012 1:03 pm)
First things first, your engine is not yet broken in. Once it is broken in you will see an increse in fuel economy.
 
Break it down a little bit for you:
 
Curb weight:
Kia: 2,800 lbs (less weight requires less energy to move)
Ford: 3,645 lbs (heavier vehicle requires more energy to move)
 
Engine:
Kia: 2.0L natually aspirated, 142 HP 6000 rpm
Ford: 1.6L ecoboost (Turbo - forced induction) 172 HP 5700 rpm (Generates greater horsepower than a naturally aspirated engine by forcing air into the intake)
 
Transmission:
Kia: 5sp Manual (control shift point, can get better mileage or worse depending on when you shift)
Ford: 6sp Auto (promotes incresed economy due to shorter gearing thereby decreasing time in higher RPM)
 
Drive:
Kia: FWD
Ford: AWD (typically decreases MPG)
 
Point is, you're moving more weight, nearly 900 lbs more weight. It's going to take more fuel to move it. And taking into consideration your driving style/location, it seems you do more stop and go which will negatively affect your economy even more considering more fuel is consumed when you accelerate from a stop. You also enjoy a more spirited driving style so that will use more fuel.
 
I traded a 2010 Kia Forte Ex Sedan for my Escape. I saw 30 mpg on average. Same engine and only 100 lbs lighter. So far I'm averaging only 4 MPG less than that. Driving style has a LOT to do with what kind of MPG you get. Before my Kia, I drove a 1991 Chevy C1500 with a 5.7L EFI V8. I routinely averaged 20-22 MPG out of that. Alternatively, I owned a 1995 Jeep Wrangler 2.5L I4 with a 5 spd manual. I averaged 17 MPG out of that.
 
I'm not trying to be negative here, only trying to give you some idea of why it may be possible you are getting such low numbers. An alternative may be a bad sensor. If you haven't taken it to the dealer yet, I'd suggest taking it in and have them run a diagnostic. Good luck, I hope you get it figured out.

Messages Page 2 of 57

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement