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.
#20 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Oct 23, 2012 (7:06 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 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [jrock83]
Oct 23, 2012 (9:08 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 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Oct 23, 2012 (9:43 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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 4WD [steve_]
Oct 23, 2012 (4:29 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 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 4WD [printerman1]
by steve_ HOST
Oct 23, 2012 (5:30 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.
Oct 24, 2012 (11:50 am)
First check after 500 miles on car was 27.2 on trip computer, 27.9 with actual miles divided by gallon to refill. 70% highway. next tank was 25.8, 40/60 split. Very satisfied with those numbers.
#26 of 565 Re: 2013 Escape 2.0 4WD [steve_]
Oct 24, 2012 (4:22 pm)
"Learning": Confusion reigns...
The driver's driving "style" memory is totally reset, erased, each and every time you start the engine. Within a fairly short period of starting the car in motion your "style" will be "binned" into 1 of 4 types. Shortly thereafter, depending on time elapsed and/or mileage covered, your driving style will be resolved into 1of 8, then 1 of 16, etc, etc.
The driving style memory stores a running record of (15) minutes, anything beyond drops off the end of the earth. So, the system will continuously adapt to your "changing" driving style/type.
An example of the use of this memory is that the "panic" braking is adapted as a function of your typical time it takes you to move your foot from the gas pedal to the brake. Make that move substantially quicker and you get "panic" braking, more braking power assist.
The "other" type of learning:
System sensors, engine and transmission sensors for instance, all have tolerances insofar as accuracy is concerned. As the car rolls out of the factory a default set of parameters are loaded with engineering assumptions of the actual accuracy of these sensors. Now as you drive the car day after day the system "learns" to correct/adjust the sensor signals as a function of the "real world" data stream now available. This learn continues as components wear.
Unplug the battery and ALL of the new learned parameters will get replaced by those factory defaults. Now the car will "act" differently for a few days, drive cycles, until those parameters can be corrected to match actual system components conditions.
#27 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Oct 25, 2012 (4:35 am)
"Maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine and it's just not the greatest powertrain for city driving in traffic."
It's pretty much this one.
My 2.0l 4WD is still doing great. I've been intentionally trying to push it higher lately, staying in the right lane at 60mph (I-81, 60/65/70mph limits posted). I managed a 28.2 indicated, 27.8 calculated for the last fill up (last night). Two great pieces of news, for me, anyway:
1) Gas prices have gone even lower. The local Harrisonburg Walmart was selling regular unleaded at around $3.27/gal (using a preloaded Walmart card to get a 3 cent discount) for the past few days. Now most area stations have come down to about the same- the Sheetz are showing $3.29 (get a free Sheetz card, swipe it before the payment card at the pump, save another 3 cents / gal over that- so I paid $3.269- can't forget the sneaky .009 per gallon!). This is a trend I like!
2) On the way home (Broadway VA) from the Sheetz on University Blvd. (Harrisonburg, VA), my average fuel economy readout got as high as 36 mpg. Of course, this was still driving like a much older man (60). It's by far the highest I've seen though, and I have over 1500 miles on it as of the last tank, too, whether that actually makes a difference or not.
Observations backing up my reply to you h3ll3r-
In town, leaving the Sheetz to get on I-81N, my average readout got down to around 15 mpg. This is several stoplights, ~35mph speed limits. If I caught all the lights while they were green, it stayed closer to 20 mpg, but once I started having to stop, and especially when taking off from the lights (even babying it, as I was), it dropped down quickly. I'm fairly certain that the turbos on these cars are set up to be providing boost at low RPMs. Combine that with a certainty that your car also gets up to 2500-3000 rpms when taking off (and not really dropping under 2000 until steady-state speed is achieved), and it suffers. Even light acceleration in my car causes the tach to hit those, which is why I'm sure yours is at least doing the same.
So, definitely *not* the best drivetrain for in-city stoplight-to-stoplight traffic. Great for cruising, even at low speeds, but not if you're going to be constantly stopping and starting over short distances. Again, probably a hybrid's territory, as most gas engines do worse than EPA city numbers in this situation (even your Kia did, though not as much so as your Escape). Or at least a mild hybrid, with start-stop tech, so as to gain maybe 1 or 2 mpg by *not* running the engine while idling at a light..
I hope you prove me wrong though. Good luck!
Oct 25, 2012 (5:09 am)
Great for cruising, even at low speeds, but not if you're going to be constantly stopping and starting over short distances
Yup. It's not a light vehicle, and Ford's transmissions shift too much and too hard, but its relatively aerodynamic. City will suffer while highway is quite good.
#29 of 565 Re: Ecoboost 1.6L [bigmclargehuge]
Oct 25, 2012 (8:27 am)
Highway, cruise, FE could be a LOT better were the engine not derated in order to accommodate more reasonable FE on boost.