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.
#49 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [steve_]
Oct 29, 2012 (7:33 am)
Most modern day engines are "tuned" on the fly, mixture ratio and timing "remapped" .
#50 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [wwest]
Oct 29, 2012 (8:38 am)
Premium gas may give better fuel mileage IF it is 100% gasoline AND your 87 octane fuel contains ethanol.
This is confusing to many consumers as they may be led to believe that Premium gas allows for better fuel economy than regular gas. ie; 91 octane is better than 87 octane for mileage.
It might, but it may be the ethanol content in the two fuels that makes the difference, not the octane rating.
Ford does state that the Ecoboosts make more HP on 91 octane, that is public knowledge. Does 91 octane yield better fuel mileage than 87 in an Escape Ecoboost? I think I would have to ask a Ford engine designer that question.
#51 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [automelon48]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 29, 2012 (9:31 am)
People always get confused about the performance aspect too. It really boils down to whether the engine application has been designed to take advantage of it.
"Octane ratings are not indicators of the energy content of fuels. " (Wikipedia)
"If your car is designed to run on 87 octane gasoline then a higher octane will not improve mileage, and if it does there is likely a problem with the control system for your engine." (Bettermileage101)
Those links aren't the last word by a long shot, but I think the best bet is to follow the recommendations in the owner's manual.
#53 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [automelon48]
Oct 29, 2012 (6:46 pm)
Thank you for the link Steve. The last three paragraphs on page one explain exactly *why* I'm interested in the results of trying out higher octane fuel with my Escape. It is exactly what is described there- Ford 'recommends' regular unleaded, but has indicated an increase in power with premium (9 hp?). This indicates that it is in fact relying on the knock sensor to allow for timing advance. Another site I found indicates that this can have a side benefit of increased fuel economy in some situations (enthusiastic driving, pulling a certain gear on a grade longer before requiring a downshift because of increased torque, etc.). I don't know if or how much benefit there might be, but the simple fact that the power and torque numbers increase, by a not quite insignificant amount, at least when you consider how much some will spend to get the same increase from other cars, means that the ECU is doing something with these cars.
#54 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [usa1fan]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 29, 2012 (7:21 pm)
One "advantage" of higher gas prices is that the .20 or .30 cent a gallon difference between regular and premium that's typical around here is that the percentage difference isn't so much.
Back in the day of $1.50 a gallon gas, a twenty cent bump was a lot bigger percentage difference. $3.50 to $3.70. Big whoop.
#55 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [usa1fan]
Oct 29, 2012 (10:27 pm)
usa1fan, I suspect that an engine as modern as the ecoboost has many options for preventing knock. Valve-timing, ignition timing and boost pressure can all be varied on these motors.
It's interesting how the Range Rover Evoque has the same Ford powerplant and is rated 240 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque yet they recommend Premium fuel only.
I suspect (IMHO) that the Ford engineers would like to see the Escape running on Premium fuel, but if it was marketed this way, fewer of us would buy one. (lets face it, we did not want to spend the extra $10+K for a Rover)
The engineers seem to have done a very good job at making these engines run just fine on regular, so good on them!
I guess it's up to us guys on the forums to determine the efficiency gain (if any) on the different fuels.
#56 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [steve_]
Oct 30, 2012 (4:42 am)
Absolutely. It's hard to believe that prices have more than tripled in just around 12 years!
#57 of 565 Re: 1.6L Ecoboost FWD SEL [automelon48]
Oct 30, 2012 (4:47 am)
That's what I got from everything I've read about these Ecoboost four cylinders, at least the 2.0's. I would love to see official EPA numbers with premium fuel. Most people still beat up on those ratings, but fail to see that they provide a consistent standardized baseline for comparison, even if they don't directly represent the exact numbers we'll see in our own use.
#58 of 565 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0 AWD: No Eco in my Ecoboost
Nov 02, 2012 (4:55 pm)
There is no "Eco" in my Ecoboost Engine!!!
I purchased a 2013 Ford Escape Titanium AWD 2.0 Liter Ecoboost in August 2012.
Estimated MPG 21 City / 24 Combined / 28 Hwy
After 3,000 Miles: MPG 17 City / 20 Combined / 23 Hwy
This is 20% lower than the EPA on the Sticker with only a 15 gallon tank, the range is horrible!!!
Note: in the manual it states "Did you know you can get 15% better fuel economy if you drive 55 instead of 65 on the highway?" It would be quite upsetting if the car was tuned to drive that far below the speed limit, putting drivers at risk in higher speed traffic as they try to achieve better fuel economy!!!
The first week I drove the car on a flat highway at 75 mph nonstop for a full tank of gas, and only calculated 23 mpg. Its never improved. I drive conservatively and never get close to 21 mpg on the highway. Watching the average mpg on the dash drop has caused me to tame my driving habits, but still no improvement.
I purchased the Escape for an SUV with power, but also good fuel economy. I love everything else about the car - the looks, the technology, the seat comfort. However, if I knew this was the mileage I would be getting, I would have never purchased the Escape. There are plenty of SUV's available with more comfort, power, bigger gas tank, and for less money at 17/20/23.
Hyundai, Kia to pay 900,000 owners for overstating mileage on window stickers
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/hyundai-kia-pay-900-000-owners-overstatin- - g-mileage-125024437.html