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.
#15 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 [h3ll3r]
Oct 21, 2012 (7:12 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 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83]
Oct 22, 2012 (4:18 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 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83]
Oct 22, 2012 (12:03 pm)
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)
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 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Oct 23, 2012 (6:06 am)
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:
Kia: 2,800 lbs (less weight requires less energy to move)
Ford: 3,645 lbs (heavier vehicle requires more energy to move)
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)
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)
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.
#21 of 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83]
Oct 23, 2012 (8:08 am)
Yeah the dealership said that we should wait until the first service, since it will be fully broken in. Then if it's still so high, it'd be looked into a bit more... They also gave me those comments about the transmission being in learning mode, which I'm not sure if it's true, can't seem to find much on the web about this.
In the meantime I've purchased a little bluetooth obd2 device to monitor stuff, which I'll link to my android phone and hopefully get all kinds of neat stats. I'm looking forward to receiving that... wondering if there could be something like the Turbo kicking in too easily or something.
I understand that there's a lot more mass to move around vs. the Kia, but there are also other things that come in play... my friend drives a Panamera which is 200 pounds heavier than my Escape, it's got a much larger, 300hp engine and despite that he gets 18-20 mpg in the same kind of commute than me, which is better than me... and he doesn't baby the throttle like I do these days (who would in a Porsche!). They got all kinds of fuel saving technologies put into their cars...
Maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine and it's just not the greatest powertrain for city driving in traffic.
Still I can't be the only one who drives through traffic in a gridlocked city and yet most people online seem to get mid-20s.
Your Forte engine was more technically advanced than the one on my Kia: yours was the Theta engine, mine the Beta... following model year on the Soul they got rid of it (I think it was their last car still on that crappy engine) and put in a newer, more efficient engine.
Thanks for your comments...
#22 of 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Oct 23, 2012 (8:43 am)
Gotcha... Yeah I don't know about that whole "transmission learning" thing either. I've got less than 600 miles on mine and it's doing fine. And I can't see the AWD making THAT much of a difference... Maybe a couple MPG less than FWD... I'm pretty well out of ideas then lol. Be interested to see what results you get from your obd2 thing too... Well... one more idea... not sure if the ecoboost does this, but it is common for turbo engines to add more fuel enriching the air/fuel mixture as rpm (and therefore air) increases. IF the ecoboosts follow this, then could it be that the computer is sending too much fuel too soon? Or even too much fuel altogether?
#23 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 4WD [steve_]
Oct 23, 2012 (3:29 pm)
as I was told by the sale & service guy, its the computer in your car that 'learns', your driving habits. You just drive the car.
#24 of 626 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 4WD [printerman1]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 23, 2012 (4:30 pm)
There's a ton of theories about how much "learning" the engine and drivetrain do and how many drive cycles it takes. I've read that it only takes a couple of minutes for the computers in a brand new engine to calibrate stuff so that the engine runs smoothly. Other people say if you change your driving style it may take 40 driving cycles or 500 miles or some other criteria for the computer(s) to adapt, change the transmission shift points, etc.
My wife and I share our cars although I do most of the driving. But there's no appreciable difference in mpg or performance when she drives them. The computers supposedly compensate for that.
Edmunds has a long term fleet of test cars that a bunch of different people get to take home. Editors use them for commuting or on vacation trips and they rarely drive the same car more than a few days at a time before someone new grabs the keys. And yet when you read the blogs and follow the mpg reports, there doesn't seem to be a lot of variation between one driver and the next.
So while I don't think your sales guy is wrong, but it may not be the main factor in getting better mileage. Getting better mileage mostly boils down to not driving aggressively. And while some people get great mpg right from the start, it seems that most of us find our mpg gets better over time, and that seems to be a function of the car breaking in as much as anything.
Plenty of people swear that their car either got peppier or better mpg after having their computer(s) reflashed. Some of that may just be the seat of the pants placebo effect though.