Last post on May 18, 2013 at 4:55 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.
#243 of 556 Ford lies again... MPG claims not even close
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 556 Re: DTE [tinycadon]
Feb 05, 2013 (8:50 pm)
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.
Feb 05, 2013 (9:13 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 556 Re: DTE [automelon48]
Feb 06, 2013 (4:32 am)
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).
#247 of 556 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
Feb 06, 2013 (6:19 am)
May I ask what is it (not opinion) that CRap does in their mpg testing that leads you to believe that their "testing" can not be trusted???
#248 of 556 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
by steve_ HOST
Feb 06, 2013 (6:56 am)
Companies get owners mad at them if they over-promise and under-deliver. Again I'm thinking Hyundai/Kia mostly.
On the Ford website, you have to dig a little to find any "ad copy" about mpg, just the EPA ratings.
On the "Green" page, there's this:
"The 2013 Escape has an eco-friendly side. For example, there are two available EcoBoostŪ engines that are designed to be efficient. In fact, the 1.6L EcoBoost engine delivers 33 highway mpg, the best automatic highway fuel economy in its class.*"
Unless you travel for work, you probably aren't highway cruising all that much. Perhaps fewer people would get frustrated if city mpg of 23 was the emphasis.
But yeah, aggressive driving, speeding, or a lousy commute can really hammer your own mpg.
#249 of 556 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
Feb 06, 2013 (8:24 am)
Here's my issue. My last vehicle had an EPA combined number of 17. Over tracking more than 70,000 miles on this vehicle, I typically averaged 19 (about 12% higher than the EPA rating). The EPA combined rating on my 2013 2.0 AWD is 24. I struggle to average 21-22! That's 12% below the EPA rating. I haven't changed my driving habits (in fact I baby this new vehicle in attempt to increase my mpg), I haven't moved, I haven't changed my driving routes. Given my current driving style, I would expect to be getting at least 12%, if not higher gains above the EPA rating - I ought to be achieving 28 to 29 mpg easily! Why am I not? This is "real world" information. Frankly I don't care how the EPA arrives at their numbers. I do know that the numbers ought to be consistent across all vehicle platforms, so that they can be used as a "fair" comparison tool. In my situation, they are not - they are far from it. Something isn't right!
#250 of 556 Do cargo roof racks significantly reduce mpg?
Feb 06, 2013 (9:27 am)
I am reading this forum with interest, maybe too late, since I already bought my 2013 Ford Escape and am fairly disappointed with the mpg. I am in no way as technically proficient as other people posting, but my fuel economy DROPS when I am driving on the highway and struggles to get above 22.5. Could roof rails ( the cross bars) be causing significant drag or something? I realize my 2008 VW Passat wagon had rails that ran the length of the car, but not across, and I got much better highway mileage. I am only at about 3500 miles, but have taken 2 separate 4 hour highway trips and am so surprised at the low highway mileage, at least compared to what was advertised. Thanks for any input. Btw, no cargo was on the roof in either trip.
#251 of 556 Re: Do cargo roof racks significantly reduce mpg? [cohann]
Feb 06, 2013 (11:29 am)
Anything protruding above the roof of your car is an aerodynamic disaster, it can reduce your MPGs by 5%-10% depending on the speed you're traveling.
#252 of 556 Re: DTE [tinycadon]
Feb 06, 2013 (12:58 pm)
That's just it- I need to see evidence of any form of 'controlled' testing before I decide to trust their numbers as representative of any vehicle's 'normal' fuel economy. Just as none of the numbers here are standardized, because we all have far too many variables separating our results from each others' experience (for that matter, within our own results from one tank to the next), without tightly controlled, well-documented procedures and variables (air temp, tire pressures, speed, time, humidity, etc..) the comparison numbers are meaningless, other than to illustrate that it is possible to get xx mpg with AAA car, because I do. With CR, I refuse to cut them slack, because things such as brand new first model year import vehicles (Tundra, for example) get recommender or 'above average expected reliability' ratings, while others, such as a redesigned Silverado don't, despite having a good reliability rating for the prior generation. They claim to only have bias for reliable vehicles, etc., but instead their actions have consistently proven otherwise.
So, until they show evidence otherwise, I don't trust that it was a controlled testing routine that provided the results in that table, rather than an ongoing and preexisting issue with domestic manufacturers.
And I understand if you get low fuel economy numbers for short, it-didn't-even-warm-up-the-car trips in cold weather and 25 mph stop and go city traffic. But if you do, you should be able to understand why the numbers are low.
Again, I think turbos are more sensitive, so the way I see most people drive will probably return lower numbers than a naturally aspirated engine application would. Btw, that's not a compliment or an excuse- if you really wan good fuel economy and it's really that important, why aren't you willing to adjust, if you can, to maximize whatever the results with whatever vehicle you drive? Many seem to want good numbers with high speeds, first away from this light and at the next, beat you to the on ramp, got your pinkslip sucka style driving. For the rest (very few, watching traffic anywhere I go), if the numbers are too low, it's probably where you drive, and maybe you just need something different. The car can meet or exceed the EPA numbers, as my own and other posts here have said. It just might not be well suited to your conditions (gets back to EPA adjustments presenting worst case, so nobody feels left out over the sticker, and since the cars will never give the same results for everyone).