Last post on May 18, 2013 at 8:42 PM
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.
#111 of 565 Re: Not Eco [renip]
Dec 15, 2012 (11:24 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 565 Re: Not Eco [mf15]
Dec 15, 2012 (12:20 pm)
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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tinycadon]
Dec 15, 2012 (2:39 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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tim156]
Dec 15, 2012 (3:59 pm)
It's "Hush Money," plain and simple!
#115 of 565 User mileage reports
Dec 15, 2012 (6:34 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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [tinycadon]
Dec 16, 2012 (5:52 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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 1.6L AWD Fuel Mileage [explorerx4]
Dec 16, 2012 (9:01 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 565 Re: 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0 AWD: No Eco in my Ecoboost [woodinva]
Dec 18, 2012 (10:47 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.
#119 of 565 Issue is small tank not mpg
Dec 19, 2012 (8:11 am)
Having traded in a vehicle that got about 16 mpg, on a good day, I'm okay with the mpg. It is the peanut sized tank I take issue with (more on that later).
I have the 2.0L 4WD, and just turned 1,200 miles. Based on my last two tanks I am getting combined mpg of 23.3 mpg. Most of my driving is city (guessing 75% city and 25% highway). based on the real time readout, I estimate that I get around 21 mpg city and 29 or 30 highway. I will also add the mpg indicator in the vehicle provided quite accurate (the readout for each tank full of gas was within 0.1 mpg of the calculated actual).
So, as I said, I don't take issue with the mpg. What I hate is the range! Refueling shortly atfter the low fuel indicator goes on, I'm getting only 250 miles on a tank! Has anyone confirmed that the tank on this vehicle is 15.1 gallons (run out of gas and refueled to full)? Here is why I ask. Besides calculating my mpg when I fill up, I also monitor via the tripmeter (reset at each fill up). On my last two fill ups (one resulted in 22.8 mpg and the other in 23.8 mpg) the "miles to empty" indicated that I had 46 and 47 miles respectively (matching the mpg reading). Here's the issue -- when I filled up, each time the vehicle took 11 gallons of gas, meaning that with a 15.1 gallon tank, I had 4.1 gallons remaining. Given the mpg, my range until empty should have read closer to 95 miles, and not 46 or 47. On each tank of gas, I traveled about 250 miles -- this was stated accurately on the tripmeter. So, I contacted Ford and asked them to 1) confirm that the tank is actually 15.1 gallons and not 13.1 gallons, and 2) verify whether or not the "miles to empty" calculation provides an intentional false reading, that includes a buffer of 2 extra gallons? After 3 days, Ford responded by saying "take the vehicle to your dealer!"
Anyone else monitor their mpg and system readouts as I have described above? what are your results? Are your "Miles to empty" reported accurately, or does it seem to under-estimate the actual range?
Dec 19, 2012 (9:26 am)
I agree, the tank is way to small, Ive tracked my purchases on fueleconomy.gov the most i have ever put in the tank is 12.38g and I usually fill up when the lights on and when I have 30-40 miles left on the empty gague.