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.
Dec 20, 2012 (9:06 am)
And dont get me wrong, I'm not bust'in on anyone about the great mpg they are getting. I'm just saying why test a car during perfect weather, using 100% gas, no ethanol, going 53 mph on a flat track with no wind, in a stripped down car to lesson the drag, etc, etc, etc.... . Is that what they should post on a window sticker????
I can get the advertised mpg, its just that I have to drive it so tame to the point of being dangerous and causing traffic to back up behind me. I mean its really ridiculous.
And again, dont get me wrong. I could give a crap about the money or the gas, I'm having a blast driving this vehicle. Premium gas all the way baby!!
#140 of 565 Re: MPG [escapeism]
Dec 20, 2012 (1:13 pm)
I'm glad to hear that, on all counts (that you're happy with your car, and not busting on those of us doing well with fuel economy, etc. XD ).
As I said above, there were probably improvements that can be made to the testing routine, but not what most seem to expect- most people seem to think that the sticker should represent *their* results.
Exactly which person's daily driving should they model?
Granted, I'd like to see the tests using "normally" available fuels (10% ethanol blend), highway driving with a speed of 70 mph, and maybe a city cycle that is much harsher (heavier acceleration, more stops, speeds kept no higher than 35 mph, etc.). If they do that, that'll really put a kink in ALL the sticker numbers. And yet there will still be lots of people taking issue with the results of *that* testing too. And many of them will still blame the EPA or the car company for lying. There's no lie in it though. What part of YMMV is so hard to understand?
Seems to me that the EPA tests aren't too bad now anyway though. If I don't try (really mean that- I drive reasonably, responsibly, don't get run over but don't attempt to win races, at the speed limit, etc.) I get the numbers on the sticker. With THIS car. With EVERY car I've ever had that didn't have a fuel leak, bad carburetor, bad gas, whatever. And I've moved around, lived in many areas (not DC, sorry for you there), Chicago, Hampton Roads, semi-rural NC, western VA, Biloxi MS, etc. At most, different areas generally result in 1-2 mpg difference in my results, from any of those cars.
At the same time, being an active car and tech nut, I frequent forums for every vehicle I own, and have for the past 20+ years (basically since the internet became widely available). The real common thread in all of them has been this- every model, and I do mean *every* one, has had this exact same type of thing. There are always plenty of posters complaining that the car company is lying, EPA methods suck, my car is defective, nobody can get those numbers, I want my money back, we took it to the dealer 500000 times with no fix, they told us it's normal, I won't ever buy one again.. It just happens that people with issues post about them, after they've hunted to see if they were alone or if there are solutions, but few without problems post. That's also why I post here so much- I'm trying to post my experiences so that many can see that these cars don't all get 2 mpg in daily use. *Some* people get that, many don't, even if only 1 person is here to say that this is true.
I and many others haven't had issues with the fuel economy (and no, not really granny driving, except to see how far above the sticker I can potentially get). In fact, unless I was having some other problem (which was obvious by other symptoms), fuel economy has always been fine. And, with a bit of effort it's always been possible to beat the EPA sticker numbers, if a bit harder since the last update to their testing methodology..
I refuse to believe that all of my cars have been special (they haven't- I've had my share of "lemons" too).
I guess what really irks me in all this isn't just that people place the blame on the car when there's really nothing wrong, though that stands out too, it's that they complain about fuel economy and yet make excuses for why it's not *their* fault. Somehow everyone thinks that cars should return maximum fuel economy with minimum effort. If you want good gas mileage, you've got to make a personal adjustment. If you don't care, great! Drive it like you stole it, and ignore how much fuel it burnt beating Joe from one light to the next or staying ahead of all the traffic on 395.
#141 of 565 Re: MPG's [mbb21]
Dec 20, 2012 (5:44 pm)
"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. "
This issue is specific to hybrid vehicles. They are discussing if the EPA testing is really appropriate for hybrid vehicles. It has nothing to do with ICE only vehicles.
Dec 20, 2012 (5:48 pm)
Good posts. It's nice to see some thought put into the discussion.
One of the things I find interesting is the display which shows all of the greenery, as an indication of "best possible" driving habits. Regardless of what the owners manual says, there is a "window" or range of driving habits and speeds which the computer will deem as efficient.
For example, speed. Let's pick a number out of the air and say that 60Mph is the most economical speed to cruise at.
It would be unrealistic for the computer to start docking you "leafs" if you drove 59Mph or 61Mph. (or 55 or 65) Obviously there is a "window" that is built around the ideal cruising speed.
Another leafy area is "anticipation".
Again, the same priniple applies. It would be great if we all had a crystal ball and could anticipate every red-light before it changed and were able to coast from 40Mph to a stop without hardly touching the brakes. Obviously this is unrealistic, but it would be the most efficient way to drive.
Again I think there is a "window" here which will allow a variety of driving styles and traffic conditions, while still yielding a good "score".
Clearly the people who routinely go from acceleration to braking with little or no coasting, will be docked leafs.
In my experience, you do not need to be a super-hero or hyper-miler to get all the leafs green. It does seem to leave room for improvement, even when your tree looks nice and leafy.
#143 of 565 Re: Issue is small tank not mpg [tinycadon]
Dec 20, 2012 (6:03 pm)
Sorry have had such a bad experience.
My wife's Escape has every option and no problems.
it's her 3rd Escape and we still have the other 2.
#144 of 565 Re: MPG's [escapeism]
Dec 20, 2012 (6:37 pm)
If I lived in the DC area, I'd try to structure my commute around public transportation.
Since you have a problem withe EPA, just head over their building with the gold plated fixtures and fill out a complaint form.
Good luck with that.
#145 of 565 Re: MPG's [explorerx4]
Dec 21, 2012 (5:31 am)
No public transportation for me. Been there, done that. I start work at 6:00am and leave at 2:30pm. So traffic isn't too bad. Actually, the only reason traffic is bad most of the time is all the road construction, which is winding down on my side of the beltway.
Maybe the EPA figures on the window stickers (Titanium, this is about what I'm getting)could post numbers like:
50 mph = 28 mpg
60 mph = 26.5 mpg
70 mph = 24 mpg
Then foks would not be shocked. I personally get 22 - 24 average per tank with my Titanium, and thats with mixed driving with crushed egg under the gas pedal. So all-in-all I'm happy, considering I'm using winter blend, 10% ethanol crap, still have my cross bars on, and go through at least a dozen crushed eggs per tank.
#146 of 565 Re: Issue is small tank not mpg [explorerx4]
Dec 21, 2012 (6:06 am)
Went to the Subaru dealership last night to get a quote on my Escape, ready for this..................$17,000!!! 17 thousand for a vehicle that's MSRP was $27,025, so what's that, 2 goezinta 4, 4 goezinta 8, 37%, that Escape has lost 37% of its' value in just under 5 months. Lovely, I guess I'm over reacting to the "over heating problem?" My only hope now is that a Mayan Asteroid hits my car out in the parking lot
#147 of 565 Re: MPG's [escapeism]
Dec 21, 2012 (7:01 am)
That's actually an interesting idea for EPA ratings, but with it being hard to get testing accomplished just using the current standards (2 tests, right?), more tests per car are even more unlikely. They could always extrapolate from the results they have now, but that makes the numbers less realistic, since things like gearing and whether or not the turbo is actually creating boost (not to mention how much boost) at any given speed can greatly change the real world vs expected numbers.
BTW, your numbers don't sound bad at all, based on those driving conditions, and are definitely in line with EPA estimates.
#148 of 565 Re: MPG's [usa1fan]
Dec 21, 2012 (9:24 am)
I also think that Ford made a mistake not putting in a "instant" mpg display versus the "average". I think if folks saw their instant readings we would alleviate many of the posts on this site because they would instantly know whether it was the driving habits or the mechanics/software of the vehicle that is to blame.