92merc

I owned a 2013 Escape, and a 2020 Escape now. Both Titanium's. I've also driven fleet Escapes for my work, just Tuesday for a matter of fact. My Titanium is much better than the fleet in materials. The BS is lower in interior materials quality than my Titanium. So I don't get the cheap comments. I've sat in a previous gen RAV4. It's material quality was lower than my Titanium, IMO. So Toyota's material quality wasn't better than the Escape. The CRV seems to be better than Toyota, but I haven't been in one of those. Now it looks like Toyota has stepped it up for the next gen RAV4, which I like. Looks like they pushed it up to near Lexus quality for the top trims, which seems to be a trend like they did with the Crown series. But to say the Escape is a POS is stretch. For me, I won't drop down to the BS interior size, so the interior quality is moot. I find the materials quality on the BS and Maverick lower than the current Escape. I'd prefer they took the looks/quality and matched it to the Explorer. Call it a Bronco Sport plus, Maverick Sport, Explorer Sport. I don't care.

That is supposed to still be an option on the higher trim levels.

There's 10 pages in the main Ford section. Ford has given the Escape a 1 year reprieve. So there will be a 2026. It looks like some models will be Hybrid power trains by default.

I'm wondering if this won't be Ford's only specialized truck coming out. Since they won't be rolling to a new platform as soon as planned, they'll be coming out with special editions. I mean, the Tremor is just an appearance package with special wheels. But Ford may be working on Hi-Po model. Either that or Ford just thinks the public will just get the factory supercharger added to an existing package.

Not unless you paid for them. I thought Lincoln's have a 5 year subscription automatically. Unless they changed that. I have a 2020 Escape. I paid for a 5 year subscription. But I'm on Sync 3. I'd say try this site. Enter your VIN. Worst it can tell you is what you'll have to pay. https://www.ford.com/support/sync-maps-updates/

While I like the styling of the Mazda's and the new RAV4, Ford can't out Toyota, Toyota. They need to stick with what they do well. Making another CUV that looks like a RAV4, or even the Crown models, Ford won't beat their reliability. So you have to make it unique. New vehicle on C2 platform. Give it the Explorer look and feel, but updated. Call it Explorer Sport. This fits in Fords mantra of "leaning on legacy models" they stated. Make it Nautilus sized, roughly, 2 row. Give it same power train options as the Nautilus. But I also think Ford should drop the CD4 Explorer and bring over the Everest as the new Explorer. So what do I know...

New Bronco Sport MAX.

I saw a TFL recent YT video. They retested their loop. I think it was at 2000 miles Ford recommended. But what ever that was, TFL got noticeably higher mileage. I'd say once you get some miles on it, expect even even better.

Just hoping they aren't pulling too many sales forward from summer. If one were to assume tariff relief for auto's happens, so no major price increases this summer, Ford may have just pulled summer sales forward. Leaving a slump this summer. Combine that with a lower consumer confidence, it could be a bad summer coming still.

I'm no engineer, but going to 0-40w oil seems like a stop gap measure at best. I saw a video that claims they went from 0-20, to 0-40. Not sure if I recall original weight correctly. But I do recall 0-40 for sure. Thought that was an odd weight.

Now a sport back I could live with. It would need to be an ICE with a hatch. But alas, as previous stated by others, dealers were shown a sedan. So probably not in the cards.

Here in ND, "most" premium is 91 octane and doesn't have ethanol. I had a 2013 Escape with the 2.0EB. I had done testing with 87 ethanol, 89 ethanol, and 91 no ethanol. I did just one tank tests. But I didn't notice any difference in mileage or perceived power. There was maybe a 1mpg gain with premium. Not even close to enough to justify the increase in cost. I currently have a 2020 Escape with a 2.0. This vehicle gets considerable better mileage. I went from 22-23 tops on the old Escape, to 26 mph mixed, up to 34 mpg on the highway. That's all been on 87 ethanol. I'm so happy with that, I've never tried premium. I also ride a BMW motorcycle. That bike requires 89 octane minimum. It will run on 87 in a pinch, but it'll retard the timing and reduce power. Since I like to keep by the book, I've never put 87 octane in. On that bike, I do get better mileage on premium. Even when comparing w/ethanol to w/ethanol. But in this situation, the increase in fuel range of about 20 miles a tank is important to me. Especially on road trips where fuel ups are few in North Dakota. So in that case, it's worth the premium to me. Plus ND has dropped 89 octane. It's now 87/ethanol, 87/non-ethanol, 91 octane.

You know what, I'm going to buck the trend and say all the pundits are wrong on this assumption. I think the Mach-4 isn't going to be based on the Mustang platform or be a sedan. I think this will end up being a whole new vehicle based on C2. Same dimensions as the Nautilus. But it will have unmistakable Mustang influences. My reasoning? Ford has stated in the past they are going to leverage their "heritage" branding. If they aren't going to use the Bronco name on a vehicle, they'll be using the Mustang branding, hence the Mach 4. The 4 not only references the four doors, but the 4 wheel drive. But it will be a CUV, not sedan.

Decided to file a complaint with NHTSA. Maybe with enough complaints, Ford might move forward and give an ETA. I have nothing to lose at this point. https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem#index

If EPA is the concern, a few thousand Mustang Sedans aren't going to make a big enough dent in Ford's overall EPA numbers. You know what would? Making a lot more Ford hybrids. Should be standard and only option on many of Ford's lineup. But Ford tossed aside the ICE development, along with that hybrid development. Stuck BILLIONS into an EV market that just isn't developing anywhere near as fast as they thought. They should have taken a more measured approach similar to Toyota. There's a reason almost every other maker is dropping sedans. Even if they are hybrids. They don't earn enough profits.