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.
#351 of 565 Re: Vehicle mileage? [steve_]
Mar 07, 2013 (11:42 am)
I agree that all the little things add up. I will take 50 lbs of "work stuff" out of my vehicle when it's not needed. I don't expect to save a lot of fuel by doing so, I just think it's a waste to move around extra weight for no reason.
My main point above, is that it is stated that a heavier driver will increase fuel consumption by 41% in the city!!!! Where does that data come from?
#352 of 565 Re: Vehicle mileage? [automelon48]
by steve_ HOST
Mar 07, 2013 (2:21 pm)
#353 of 565 Gas tank
Mar 07, 2013 (2:46 pm)
I never had a vehicle in 40+ years of ownership where I complained the gas tank was too big. And that includes pickups that had 2 tanks.
#354 of 565 Re: Not Eco [renip]
Mar 12, 2013 (12:52 pm)
Have spent some time reading these posts and have never seen so many complaints about expected vs true MPG. In CITY driving, that is.
We all agree that there's little or nothing wrong when taking this baby, especially the 2.0 AWD Ecoboost, out of the city. But OMG, if you're a city driver like I am (Washington, DC), even if you are not trying to be the fastest when taking off - I have become extremely careful-, you're in for a surprise: I get 13.5 MPG, run out of gas after 180-200 miles. I might as well get a parking spot where I fill up!
I've driven just about 5500 miles, and am thoroughly disappointed. I truly shouldn't have to scavenger for 100% gas, switch to 91/93, wonder why Ford decided to engage the All Wheel Drive at all take offs from stop, and the many other reasons folks try to explain away the fact that Ford promised good city mileage and can't deliver.
And please, if you are a 60/40 or 70/30 driver, we KNOW by now that you get 22.24 MPG. That's not what everyone is complaining about. So stop telling us why you love Ford so much. So you like their logo? Good for you. But it has nothing to do with the problem.
Anyway, my Ford is at the dealership being tested, but I'm sure it's going to be blamed on the user. That's what they do until the EPA gets on this, and they have to eat crow.
Anyone want to buy an almost new Escape? Got a great deal for ya.
Mar 12, 2013 (2:30 pm)
Glad I didnt buy the 2.0 ! Got 35.2 mpg just yesterday on my 1.6 !!!!
#356 of 565 Re: Not Eco [pkmoor]
Mar 12, 2013 (1:10 pm)
"...Anyway, my Ford is at the dealership being tested, but I'm sure it's going to be blamed on the user. That's what they do until the EPA gets on this, and they have to eat crow.
Anyone want to buy an almost new Escape? Got a great deal for ya. "
If you do unload the '13, look up a 2010-2012 Escape Hybrid. I was very disappointed when they did not continue the hybrid for 2013. It gets absolutely great city mileage for an SUV.
On a side note, I never really understood why they engage the AWD from a cold stop. My 2008 AWD FEH does it as well. Interesting to see they carried on that design "feature".
#357 of 565 Re: Not a fuel sipper but good MPG for weight & towing ability [craign1]
Mar 12, 2013 (1:18 pm)
Dear Craig, I have a 2.0 Titanium and drive mostly in town. Yes, I do take it out, and then the MPG is fine, not great, but fine. We are not complaining about that.
However, if Ford says that we should get "Up to 22 cty/30 hwy mpg", and we get 13.5 cty, then there's something WRONG with that. I challenge the EPA to actually get 22 cty. Even with 100% gas, which is unavailable in most large cities.
That is what we are talking about. Stay with the point we are trying to make, and don't confuse it with your Ford love affair.
#358 of 565 Re: Not a fuel sipper but good MPG for weight & towing ability [pkmoor]
Mar 12, 2013 (1:33 pm)
"... However, if Ford says that we should get "Up to 22 cty/30 hwy mpg", and we get 13.5 cty, then there's something WRONG with that. I challenge the EPA to actually get 22 cty. Even with 100% gas, which is unavailable in most large cities. ..."
He said he is getting 21 in town, and described some of the techniques he uses to achieve that.
The differences in reports by various owners makes me wonder if the gas blend is vastly different in the various places.
#360 of 565 Re: Not Eco [pkmoor]
Mar 12, 2013 (4:22 pm)
You state, "We all agree that there's little or nothing wrong when taking this baby, especially the 2.0 AWD Ecoboost, out of the city." Well, I don't agree. Mine now has 4,500 miles on it, and we took a drive this past weekend. We did 260 miles on flat, Illinois interstate. I set the cruise at 65, and we rolled across the flat expanse of Illinois highway. My mpg (based on refueling, not the display) was 22.7 mpg for these 260 miles. Ford's specs indicate that the 2.0 4WD model gets 28 mpg highway. My experience puts me more than 5 mpg under the mark. Not sure how much purer highway driving you could get than a flat 260 mile stretch of highway with a constant speed of 65. Based on the miles I drive per year, and current gasoline prices, this 5 mpg shortfall costs me about $350 per year -- in my eyes, I was flat out lied to and didn't get what I paid for!