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.
#247 of 626 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
Feb 06, 2013 (5:19 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???
Feb 06, 2013 (5:56 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 626 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
Feb 06, 2013 (7:24 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 626 Do cargo roof racks significantly reduce mpg?
Feb 06, 2013 (8:27 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 626 Re: Do cargo roof racks significantly reduce mpg? [cohann]
Feb 06, 2013 (10:29 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 626 Re: DTE [tinycadon]
Feb 06, 2013 (11:58 am)
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).
#253 of 626 Re: DTE [usa1fan]
Feb 06, 2013 (12:39 pm)
Ok, but my take on CR, regardless of their bias issues towards Japan/US vehicles, is that they drive all their cars in the same fashion, how "normal" people "normally" drive, so any numbers they derive are all derived in the same fashion.
As for your take on how to adjust your driving to get the most mpgs from a turbo, that's not the issue, the issue is they are marketing this vehicle as both Better Power AND Better MPGs. They're not saying it's either/or, they are saying you can have both. THAT is what people are upset about, and THAT is why people are complaining, if anything, it's false advertising but not fraud. If they're going to advertise that you can have more power AND better mpgs, you shouldn't have to use kid gloves to drive it. I never had to drive like an 85yr old grandmother going to church to hit the EPA number for highway. I could get 27mpg doing 70-75 in the naturally aspirated Escape, why shouldn't I expect the same results in the "ECO"boost? Why should I have to drive 50-60mph to get the same results?
#254 of 626 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [h3ll3r]
Feb 06, 2013 (5:43 pm)
apparently my 6 cyl is learning my driving habits thusly affecting my gas mileage. HAL are you listening. problem is who makes the software, Bill Gates? Their INsync software is Windows based...careful! windows is known for being full of sxxxx (holes)
#255 of 626 Re: DTE [tinycadon]
Feb 06, 2013 (6:59 pm)
That's a good point, about the advertising. But you can only go so far with that, if they actually went by the book to get the numbers on the sticker. The advertising isn't really any different than any of these companies- recall the price in most ads overlaying the top trim models? It's usually the base starting price. They all would like us to believe that you can have the nicest car, for the low price, and drive however, while still getting class-leading fuel economy.
Now, just because these Escapes can get the numbers (ie. for me and a few others) doesn't mean they got those numbers testing properly. Unlike others, I'm not saying they can't have, because my own results say otherwise. I'd love to see what the EPA finds out if they test themselves though. Because, admittedly, the manufacturers are biased toward getting results they can sell us on, while the EPA just wants facts.
#256 of 626 Re: DTE [tinycadon]
Feb 06, 2013 (9:41 pm)
"the issue is they are marketing this vehicle as both Better Power AND Better MPGs. They're not saying it's either/or, they are saying you can have both. THAT is what people are upset about
I tend to think that I have both power and better MPG's. The idea is to have (in my case) the fuel efficiency of a 2.0L engine, when that is all that is needed, AND have the power of a MUCH larger engine, simply by pressing the accelerator. I just came from a 4.0L Chrysler engine (2008, which was a good engine) and it had less torque than the 2.0 EcoBoost !
I do understand however, if I get pushed back in the seat of my Escape, then I am using a significant amount of fuel to do this. Likely a similar amount to what my 4.0L was using.
The good thing is, I can let off the pedal and I am right back to having 2.0L efficiency.
Granted, it may not be quite as efficient as a 2.0L, 150 Hp normally aspirated engine, but it's not far off. (and I wouldn't want to own one)
Like I said, I feel I have the best of both worlds. But I have to choose at any given time, do I want to enjoy the fuel efficiency of my 2.0L engine or feel the torque of the turbo.
Again, I can only report on my experience.