Last post on Nov 29, 2013 at 10:19 AM
You are in the Ford Escape
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.
#109 of 626 Fords 2.0 Wins BEST ENGINE
Dec 13, 2012 (6:55 am)
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.
#110 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [rpmura]
Dec 15, 2012 (3:28 am)
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? Jus' sayin' makes no sense to me. But it's your money throw it around if you want to.
#111 of 626 Re: Not Eco [renip]
Dec 15, 2012 (10:24 am)
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.
#112 of 626 Re: Not Eco [mf15]
Dec 15, 2012 (11:20 am)
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)
#113 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tinycadon]
Dec 15, 2012 (1:39 pm)
So, you think Ford is admitting they have a lemon... wrong. Ford is realizing that there's a bunch of Chicken Little's out there who will give them a perfectly good car with really low miles to resell at a great profit and then they'll sell you another car with a discount you could have negotiated with a salesman and make even more profit.
#114 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tim156]
Dec 15, 2012 (2:59 pm)
It's "Hush Money," plain and simple!
#115 of 626 User mileage reports
Dec 15, 2012 (5:34 pm)
A friend of mine tracks his mileage on a website called fuelly.com I don't use the site myself, but it does look interesting.
I checked it out recently for the Escape to see what it showed.
Basically, it shows that the 2013's are averaging as good or better than any of the previous generation Escapes. Many owners, many thousands of miles reported.
My average tank of my first 7 tanks is 24.25 Mpg in my 2.0 FWD. Just slightly ahead of the 2013 reported average. My best was 27.6 and worst 20.6.
Unfortunately the website does not seem to differentiate between engines and 2WD/4WD. It is just an average of all fill-ups from all configurations.
Very pleased with my Escape. (mileage and everything else)
#116 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tinycadon]
Dec 16, 2012 (4:52 pm)
How can you term it 'Hush Money'? How many owners had a problem, 12 or so, out of how many thousands?
They want their customers to be comfortable with what they have.
#117 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [explorerx4]
Dec 16, 2012 (8:01 pm)
Ohhhh, I don't know, because Ford is betting the house on this vehicle and they want to minimize the blowback from angry owners??? And these so called "PROBLEMS" aren't just "PROBLEMS" they are vehicles that are catching fire, and this is the 3rd time they've had to recall the Escape for it! Glad you think it's no biggie, I happen to think it is.
#118 of 626 Re: 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0 AWD: No Eco in my Ecoboost [woodinva]
Dec 18, 2012 (9:47 pm)
I have a 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0 AWD in Southern California and after 4000 miles, I am still only getting 17/20/23 mpg average. There is an article regarding Consumer Reports questioning the mpg on the Ford C-Max. Ford says 47 mpg, Consumer Reports could only get 38 mpg. Ford is talking to the EPA regarding the numbers...but the article brings out a good point. Ford tests according to the EPA "Standards" which includes "Highway" Speeds at 48 mph. When increased to 65 to 75 mph, people lose as much as 20% fuel Economy ~38 mpg from a target of 47 mpg. I noticed in my owners manual for the 2013 Ford Escape it states you can improve your mpg 15% if you reduce your speed to 50 mph on the Freeway...combine that with the 5-10% reduction in fuel economy caused by 10% Ethanol, and you can explain my poor fuel economy. This leaves me with just one question - "Why would Ford tune an engine for 50 mph on the highway? That performs 15% less when driving the speed limit? Do they want to put my family in danger by driving too slow? I'm taking my car in next week. We will see what they say.