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 14 of 57

#129 of 565 Gas Mileage by mrmonty

Dec 19, 2012 (7:37 am)

I wanted to report that I am getting nowhere near the advertised gas mileage on my 2013 Escape 2.0 AWD. On a 500 mile trip all highway, I averaged 17.6-18.2! Half the time my cruise was set at 70 MPH. In the City it's about exactly the same. I have 1700 miles on the car right now. Not sure if there's a "break-in" period, but I hope it gets better. ADvertising 28/29 for the AWD 2.0 and only getting 18 on the highway is a MAJOR problem. Am I wrong? Or overreacting? Any thoughts would be helpful.
Thanks
Chris
PS- Only other issue is that it rides very rough with the 19" wheels in the city, other than that I love the car. Acceleration is great, features are awesome, park assist etc. etc.

#130 of 565 Re: Gas Mileage [mrmonty] by automelon48

Dec 19, 2012 (8:27 am)

Replying to: mrmonty (Dec 19, 2012 7:37 am)
Chris, the 2.0 AWD is rated 21/28 City/Hwy.
You said your cruise control was set for 70Mph half the time. What speeds were you driving for the other half of the time?
 
Cruise control is very inefficient if you are driving on any hilly terrain. Not sure if there were any hills on your trip.
Were you driving against the wind at any point in your trip?
70 Mph is not the most efficient cruising speed. If you are looking to get the EPA estimate, you should be driving closer to 60 Mph.
 
What kind of gas? I think I sound like a broken record on this topic, but the gas you buy will vary your mileage.
The EPA uses 91-93 octane Ethanol-free gas for testing.(from everything I have read) Try to find some 91 octane Ethanol free fuel, to see if this has any effect.
I would not expect more than a 5% improvement after break-in.

#131 of 565 Re: Gas Mileage [mrmonty] by mbb21

Dec 19, 2012 (11:12 am)

Replying to: mrmonty (Dec 19, 2012 7:37 am)
I have been lurking on this subject for a while and reading up on the mileage results people are getting under various conditions. I have a Titanium 2.0 4WD with about 1675 miles on it. I am in flat Miami, FL - no hills, and drive 75/25 city/highway and also use 93 octane fuel. During all of this time my mileage has averaged 19.3 mpg according to the on board computer. I have also been measuring the mileage by hand and so far for the last few tanks it has been 18.92, 18.70 and 19.26 mpg. Also, when looking in the submenu under the MPG display, I think it is called the EcoMode, it shows my driving with all green leaves, in other words, I am driving as fuel efficiently as possible as judged by the car's own system.
 
Given that the car is rated by the EPA at 21/28 city/highway, my numbers are not too far off from the bottom range. However, this is not what I expected or expect! Doing the math and given the EPA numbers, I should be averaging 22.75 mpg given the 75/25 percent city/highway driving that I do. Right now I am under that mark by 16.7%, that is quite a miss! So even if the system improves by 5% by further break in mileage my mpg will still be under the claim by over 11.6%. Not exactly what I expected.
 
The second beef I have with the car is its limited range. I now have to gas up almost every week and at most get 250 miles on a stretch before I need to fill up. On the last fill up where I got the 19.26 mpg reading the system says that my range is 273 miles before the next fill. Too bad Ford did not put an extra gallon sized tank on.
 
Outside of these two things the car is a blast and I thoroughly enjoy it. It is a great ride, fun to ride automobile that could have been made just great with a little extra care and effort from Ford.

#132 of 565 MPG's by izedaman

Dec 19, 2012 (9:58 am)

I feel you, and im not even in the AWD. 2.0 gas boost engine. The main thing is my other cars I have driven get posted EPA est. Using the same cheap walmart gas, im the same driver, have the same habbits. live in the same area. However in my Velositer I get a check every year because they overstated the MPG's.
Im not even running the A/C, im know its gonna be worse in the summer, when I use the push to start to cool off the car.... bla still a fun car but the MPG did play alot into me buying the car.
so now I need to buy high octaine gas, The info I had from Ford said no, that would only give me a boost in HP not MPG. And I need to buy gas with out corn.... I dont think that is possible living by Houston... even out of town gas stops have 10% E . So there is no way I can achieve those EPA numbers. and yes my tires are filled with nitrogen at posted on the door limits. and I have no cargo other then my big butt. I do log my fule at the www.fueleconomy.gov site. I only see 4 people recording for the 2.0 T
As more of these hit the roads I think alot of people are gonna be pissed

#133 of 565 Re: MPG's [izedaman] by usa1fan

Dec 19, 2012 (12:03 pm)

Replying to: izedaman (Dec 19, 2012 9:58 am)
See my previous posts here and in the 2013 Escape fuel economy topic; I get advertised numbers using regular 10% ethanol (Walmart too!). So it's definitely possible. I've yet to have a single tank that was 100% highway, so my current high of over 29 mpg for a tank can still be bettered. That tank was achieved at around 5000 miles on the car, using non-ethanol 93 octane gas (whether that had a real impact or not will take further experimentation). Regardless, I routinely see 25+ mixed (80% highway?), using that Walmart gas..
 
Unfortunately that means one of two things-
1. You (and a lot of others here) bought a lemon (and I didn't), or
2. Your conditions / driving aren't really in tune with the car's most efficient operation (regardless of what the DIC tells you).
 
No offense intended, but all indications are pointing to #2.

#134 of 565 Re: MPG's [usa1fan] by escapeism

Dec 19, 2012 (7:38 pm)

Replying to: usa1fan (Dec 19, 2012 12:03 pm)
No offense, but you must :
1. Drive like a sissy, or
2 drive downhill both ways.
 
 
 
Sorry, but I have to DRIVE here in DC so I don't get run over. Maybe something is wrong with the EPA folks and not the car.

#135 of 565 Re: MPG's [escapeism] by usa1fan

Dec 20, 2012 (5:42 am)

Replying to: escapeism (Dec 19, 2012 7:38 pm)
 XD
 
1. Yep, but most of us call it "driving like we want to get decent fuel economy"
2. Sometimes. It's hard to find areas around here that work for that, but, Mystery Hill Road is great!
 
Your final comment pretty much sums up why you don't get the fuel economy that I do- it's okay, too. But you can't blame the car for the results you see when you have to (or feel that you have to) drive that way.
 
And, as I've posted many times before, the main problem with windows stickers is that people don't understand what the purpose of those numbers really are, or are just being willfully stupid; The sticker isn't *what you will get*, so much as an index allowing you to compare different vehicles under *similar driving conditions to each other*. In other words, 26 mpg combined for vehicle A versus 21 mpg combined for vehicle B means, NOT that you'll get 26 (or 21) mpg for either in *your* combined driving, but that 'A' will most likely get better fuel economy than 'B' for most people in combined driving situations.
 
Maybe they should go straight to a 1-100 scale, without even referencing a mpg number at all, since most people simply can't seem to grasp the real purpose of the sticker anyway.
 
Not to say that there isn't other room for improvement in the stickers, but if they try to make sure they fit EVERY driver in EVERY condition, they become useless. Essentially, EVERY car has a range from 0 mpg (if you leave your car idling through a full tank) to some seemingly outrageous (hypermiling) number, depending on who / where / when / how it's driven. This is also why there are some folks who post on forums about not getting the 'advertised' numbers. I'd wager there are plenty who *are* getting those numbers or better, but we never hear about them. Like everything else, the people screaming are usually the people who are unhappy, the rest just go about their business as usual and see no reason to search the internet for topics about 'why am I getting great fuel economy'..
 
The EPA tests just standardize two specific types of situation / driving style and post comparative results for all cars. Fairly reasonable, even if you and others don't seem to get it.

#136 of 565 Re: MPG's [usa1fan] by izedaman

Dec 20, 2012 (6:41 am)

Replying to: usa1fan (Dec 20, 2012 5:42 am)
For most of us this is not our 1st car purchase. Every car that I have owned I have achieved very close to the sticker, some even over the sticker on my scion. however on this car Im not even close. I feel the others are in the same boat.
How do you explain Hyundai loosing a battle by over inflating the MPG's why didnt they just tell people that they are all lead foots and be done with it.
 
"The lawsuit, filed by Seattle law firm Hagens Berman on behalf of 23 plaintiffs, seeks reimbursement for the lost sale value of the vehicles because they have lower fuel economy than advertised. The law firm says damages could reach $775 million."
 
People do understand what those numbers mean. Im just waiting to see if they go after Ford for making up numbers not too many people are getting, like they did with Hyundai.

#137 of 565 Re: MPG's [usa1fan] by mbb21

Dec 20, 2012 (7:21 am)

Replying to: usa1fan (Dec 19, 2012 12:03 pm)
Reading your postings and comments, it looks like the MPG problems being posted by the users are mostly attributable to user driving habits/style and or conditions and there is nothing wrong with what Ford and the EPA are reporting as the vehicles MPG numbers. Given the number of mileage problem postings on the 2013 Escape I must conclude, no offense intended, that you are the one lucky fellow that ended up with the Escape that was used to compute the EPA mileage figures and your driving style and conditions must match exactly those used in the EPA test.
 
If you read my previous posting, I have tried to drive as efficiently as possible in order to maximize my MPG readings without much success. The best gauge that I can use is Ford's own measure of driver efficiency; the Eco Mode rating given on the MPG display sub-menu. Here is what the manual says;
 
ECO MODE
This system assists you in driving more
efficiently by constantly monitoring
characteristics of gear changing,
anticipation of traffic conditions and
speeds while driving.
The value of these characteristics is
represented by petals shown in the display,
with five petals being the most efficient.
The more efficiently you drive, the better
the rating, and the better your overall fuel
economy.
 
Well guess what, I get a five (5) petal rating, the highest rating that you can achieve and consequently I should be getting pretty close to the EPA claimed MPG figure posted by Ford and I am not.
 
Also, Consumer Reports is questioning Ford's EPA MPG figures for the Fussion and C3 vehicles. Their tests of these cars are falling way short of the claimed figures posted by Ford. Given these facts I tend to think that Ford has pulled a Hyundai with the mileage numbers on most of their later car offerings.
 
Like the saying goes; "where there is smoke, there is fire" and in this case there sure are a lot of smoke signals going up about the under achieving MPG figures on the 2013 Escape.

#138 of 565 Re: MPG's [mbb21] by tinycadon

Dec 20, 2012 (7:53 am)

Replying to: mbb21 (Dec 20, 2012 7:21 am)
"where there is smoke, there is fire" You got that right, Escapes are catching fire for no reason, oh, I'm sorry, they're "OVERHEATING!"

Messages Page 14 of 57

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement