* Server response code: 500 We've had a minor breakdown.






We've had a minor breakdown.
The page you were looking for didn't load. Try refreshing the page, or check out our Site Map.







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 25 of 57

#237 of 565 Re: DTE [tinycadon] by automelon48

Feb 05, 2013 (12:25 pm)

Replying to: tinycadon (Feb 05, 2013 9:09 am)
Boy, these numbers seem to be all over the place!
Consumer Reports is showing the 2.0 Escape, 0-60 time at 8.2 seconds, which is OK, but not great. Motortrend tested the Escape 2.0 and timed it, 0-60 in 6.8 and the 1/4 mile at 15.2 which is VERY respectable up against ANY V6.
CR also reports an observed Fuel Economy at 22MPG combined, when it is EPA rated 24 combined.
Well with my 2.0FWD I have put 14 tanks through it and have a lifetime average to date of 24.1 MPG with winter tires, winter gas, cold tempertaures etc. (approx 50/50 driving)
I realize this is not everyone's experience, but I am reporting on my experience.
Yesterday while on a 4 hour highway trip I did some mileage monitoring. I found at;
60Mph I was at 31MPG.
At 65Mph, 30MPG (this is EPA for 2.0 FWD)
At 70Mph, 28.5MPG
and finally at 75Mph, 27MPG.

#238 of 565 Re: DTE [tinycadon] by explorerx4

Feb 05, 2013 (4:26 pm)

Replying to: tinycadon (Feb 05, 2013 11:11 am)
I live about hour from CR HQ and we have E-10 all year long. Now we have winter formulation on top of that.
We have an '09 Escape WAD V6, in addition to the '13AWD 2.0. By the 3rd year it matched what the new is getting already.

#239 of 565 Re: DTE [automelon48] by h3ll3r

Feb 05, 2013 (4:33 pm)

Replying to: automelon48 (Feb 05, 2013 12:25 pm)
I've tried doing some tests like that, i.e trying to see the difference between 105 km/h, 110, 115, 120, etc. On a long trip, I was doing runs of 20km at each speed, on cruise. It was largely inconclusive, it just varied too much. In my own test, I did the best "score" at 120 km/h. Probably due to the incline where I was doing it, or some tail wind, or whatever. Also, on these short runs, the mpg was very good, but it just doesn't live up to the tank. By that I mean, even though I could do very good "short stints" like that, over the entire tank, my results would be nowhere near as good.
 
Essentially, this car is very good on gas, unless you're accelerating. LOL I know, it sounds silly, but it's particularly true with this engine. Anytime you're coasting (i.e. constant hwy speeds), it does really well, but as soon as you have to accelerate (city), it just totally wrecks the fuel economy.
 
My last 2 tanks were exactly 14.0 L/100km (16.8 mpg). 100% city, often congested. Very conservative driving, rarely any vigorous acceleration. Very cold weather, -10 to -15 C. Trying to release the gas pedal as much as possible to coast. Interestingly, trip computer had me at 13.4 L/100km (17.5mpg) on the last tank. Wonder if the "volume adjusted to 10 C" sign at the gas station plays a role in this, i.e. it shows more gas at the pump than I'm really putting in.
 
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/h3ll3r/escape

#240 of 565 2013 Ford Escape 2.0 Ecoboost by freni

Feb 05, 2013 (4:45 pm)

My mileage is also a disappointment. 16.8 city 18.9 combined. All other aspects of the car I enjoy but the mileage is really disappointing.

#241 of 565 Re: DTE [explorerx4] by explorerx4

Feb 05, 2013 (5:41 pm)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Feb 05, 2013 4:26 pm)
I need to correct a few things in my post and take a better look at it before I post it.
 
I live about hour from CR HQ and we have E-10 all year long. Now we have winter formulation on top of that.
We have an '09 Escape AWD V6, in addition to the '13 AWD 2.0. By the 3rd year it matched what the new one is getting already.

#242 of 565 Re: DTE [tinycadon] by stevedebi

Feb 05, 2013 (6:15 pm)

Replying to: tinycadon (Feb 05, 2013 8:13 am)
The whole point of the Turbo is to get better performance from a smaller engine. That is how they achieve higher MPG. Turbocharging is not inherently going to give the consumer any better MPG by itself. The reason the smallest engine model (1.6L) gets similar (or better) MPG than the 2012 (2.5L) is that it is a full .9 liters smaller in displacement.
 
But I still think that to get the best MPG, one has to keep out of that turbo as much as possible, while still having the power available when really needed.
 
My big disappointment was their dropping the FEH, which was a great vehicle.

#243 of 565 Ford lies again... MPG claims not even close by midknightusn

Feb 05, 2013 (8:02 pm)

Decided to go with the Escape SE 1.6L mainly for the MPG. Wish we would've seen all these posts on various websites IRT the 2013 Ford Escape MPG. We too are averaging 17.9-18.1 MPG combined 75% Highway. Marysville Ford tells us we have to put 7,500-10,000 miles on the engine to break it in. Please tell me how I'm averaging 22.8-24.1 MPG on my 7 month old just now 3,184 mile 2012 Challenger SXT? Driving her from GA to MD we averaged 27 MPG on I-95. Now the Escape driving pure highway best MPG is 24 MPG after going from Everett, WA to Vancouver, WA. Please tell me Ford why? I feel cheated once again by Ford. Class action lawsuit seems to be in order here folks!

#244 of 565 Re: DTE [tinycadon] by usa1fan

Feb 05, 2013 (8:50 pm)

Replying to: tinycadon (Feb 05, 2013 8:13 am)
FYI, even though CR isn't really all that reliable a source for this kind of thing (yup, that's my opinion, and I'll stick to it based on prior reading of their CRap), the numbers they posted aren't really outside the realm of reasonable for a vehicle with the posted EPA combined ratings they ALSO list.
 
For example, their results for the 1.6L Ecoboost Escape shows that they saw 22 mpg combined in their testing (assuming you can call it testing). This is compared to the EPA 25 mpg combined numbers. Doing the math, 3/25 = .12 * 100 = 12%. That's well within the range of effects seen because of driving style, traffic conditions, altitude / speeds, tire pressures, etc.
And for the 2.0L Ecoboost, the numbers are even less meaningful, at just 22 CR vs 24 EPA, which is 2/24 = .0833 x 100 = 8.33% off of the EPA ratings..
 
Edit: researched a bit, and found that some tests show the 2.0L Ecoboost Escape 0-60 (AWD) at just over 8.0 secs, which is in line with the CR data, so I removed and retract my last paragraph, about their data being all out of whack. I still stand by the fact that nearly all, if not all, of their numbers are within the reasonable range of the EPA combined ratings though.

#245 of 565 Re: DTE [h3ll3r] by automelon48

Feb 05, 2013 (9:13 pm)

Replying to: h3ll3r (Feb 05, 2013 4:33 pm)
I agree that the short stints are hard to get any conclusive data, which is why I really only trust the full tank method.
Yesterday on my 4-hour trip, I was monitoring the fuel consumption instantaneously and in 1-minute increments and 5-minute increments using the OBDII port and an iPad application. I tried these 4 speeds a few times and had fairly consistant results. It's never a perfect method, as there are small differences in terrain etc, but the graphs were quite consistantly showing the difference on this trip.
On my current tank which is 80% Hwy, I have gone 305 Km (190 miles) and still have 49% fuel remaining. Showing 8.5L-100km or 27.6Mpg. It was just the city driving that pulled it down that low.
 
Highway driving is not too difficult to interpret as you can more or less drive at at reasonable speed and call it highway driving.
City driving on the other hand is a dogs breakfast for mileage ratings. One persons City driving might have an average speed of 40Kph while another persons City driving could have an average speed of 15Kph. The EPA has their testing criteria, but I would imagine that the real world results can be much better and certainly much worse.

#246 of 565 Re: DTE [automelon48] by usa1fan

Feb 06, 2013 (4:32 am)

Replying to: automelon48 (Feb 05, 2013 9:13 pm)
I'm still not sure how the EPA came up with the drive cycle they use for their tests. Given that, in the real world, most people treat the posted speed limit as a "go not less than this, and preferably 10 over.." on the highways, EPA should test at 80mph for the highway portions.
 
As you point out, the city part is a complete snarl. Even two people in the same city are almost guaranteed to have different results for their in-city driving.
 
And while it might not sound like it, I can understand the frustration of getting lower fuel economy than the sticker says. It's just that most people need to keep in mind that the sticker never promises anything- it is really just to compare relative numbers between cars (why I'd suggest a 1-100 scale ranking cars rather than providing absolute mpg figures on the sticker).
 
There are two things that make it harder for me to place the blame on the car company (when people say they are misleading) or the car (when people say that a specific model isn't giving them the promised fuel economy):
 
1. I only read and attempt to respond to replies about the vehicles I own and have operated, and in every case, I've matched or exceeded the EPA numbers (city, highway, and combined).
 
2. In every case, as a forum regular, here and elsewhere, there's always a large vocal group that doesn't get the EPA numbers, and that insists that the car is defective, or that the car company is lying.
 
Those two themes seem to be universal over each of the last six vehicles I've owned (a Silverado, an Avalanche, two different model Malibus, a Trailblazer, and the Escape).
 
I do have to say that the Escape makes me work the hardest to get the better numbers. I attribute it to the smaller engine and turbo making me have to be much more careful about acceleration. Which is most likely why CRs numbers, while reasonable, seem consistently lower for the turbo cars than the NA cars. If driven carefully, the smaller displacement turbos can give better results than are possible with the larger NA engines. Unfortunately, in the real world, most people aren't willing to drive carefully in return for better fuel economy- they want to drive the way they always have and get better fuel economy. So the larger engine options are probably best for them.
 
And the EPA really needs to up the speed of the highway test, add way more stop and go and low speed / rapid acceleration to the standardized testing procedures, along with cold temperatures, low tire pressures, non-flat terrain, 10% ethanol fuel, etc. Have I missed anything that normally affects people's fuel economy in the real world? The idea is that the sticker should represent the bottom 5% of expected numbers for city / highway / and combined. Of course, the sticker still can't be used for government fuel economy standards, unless those standards are lowered to realistic numbers, based on the real world drivers and conditions (1/3 or less the current standards, in my estimate).

Messages Page 25 of 57

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement