johndixs

Rscalzo, Coming from a 2008 Mariner Hybrid, I made the same assessment that you did, and thus brought home a 2013 Santa Fe Sport ( 2.4 engine, all three packages )on Wednesday. When you look at the Santa Fe, take note, not only of the overall space differences, but of the various storage areas.

Hmmmm. I always remember reading that 3 were required for a 2D solution, 4 for a 3D solution, and, for instrument approaches in aircraft requiring RAIM ( Remote Autonomous Integrity Monitoring ) , one needed 5. Could be wrong, though.

Assuming the 2013 diagnostics page is similar to older versions, there will be a GPS Info tab on that page. If you hit that tab before you pull out of the garage and then just sit in place for a moment to wait for the GPS to lock on to the satellites, in about a minute, certainly less than two, you should have a 3D solution showing and four or more satellites.

I parked my 2008 Mariner Hybrid next to a 2013 SEL and took some measurements which paint a bit different picture: 1. From midpoint of rear opening, drop a vertical to floor. Mariner: 33 1/4". SEL: 31 5/8" 2. Floor width measured at fore/aft midpoint. Mariner: 45.0". SEL: 40 3/4" 3. Diagonal, left front of rear floor to right rear. Mariner: 52.0". SEL: 48 1/2".

Dealer called back to say that they think the wording is improper but are checking with Ford.

I thought the same thing at first, I.e., that it was the auto lift gate, but the restriction note is also posted in the section covering the manual lift gate.

In the hope that Ford Engineering may monitor this forum: In reading the 2013 Escape Owners Manual ( at motor service.com ), there was a Note in two places prohibiting attachment of a bike rack to the lift gate. No such restrictions are posted in the manual for my 2008 Mariner. I have a Thule 911XT rack, which is in the list of racks tha Thule says fits the Mariner. Thule also specifys this same rack as fitting The 2013 Escape. Just some background, but on the Mariner, with two bikes aboard, I always grab the rack and move the two rack bars up/down and left/right to check for security/looseness prior to driving. I have never noticed sheet metal motion at the six attachment points ( since the six straps to the attachment are canvas, and since the rack bars are cantilevered structures, there IS flexibility built into the rack design ). Point being that, if anything, the doors on the 2013 design appear heavier/stronger than the 2008 Mariner doors, so the reason for the rack limitation isn't obvious. I sent an email to the dealer requesting confirmation of the Owners Manual instructions.

Looking to replace a 2008 Mariner Hybrid, I'd agree that the 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport contends with the new Escape. Drove the CX-5 and, considering the way I use the Mariner, and in fact comparing the normal driving performance of that car to the Mariner, I share the opinion of the US and Canadian CX-5 drivers on a certain forum, which is that the CX-5 has enough power to make it a non-issue for flat terrain, non-towing type applications. There are some indications that the new Rav4 electric doesn't have the same old tailgate, but it seems uncertain whether the std 2013 Rav4 will be so designed. I have had zero success in learning anything specific about the MPG to be expected for the 2013 CRV, but am assuming that at the end of the day, all of the cars mentioned will be around 26 mpg combined or higher, and thats the number that counts. Exception is the CX-5 whose drivers ( US and Canada ) seem to be getting 28-29 combined ( EPA combined is 29 for that car ).

Well, he has 21 posts, all with the same message. Time for the moderator to exercise some " moderating " skills?

Concur with FordBuyer. Unfortunately, on that basis the CX-5 Auto beats the 1.6L by 3 mpg: 29 vs 26. Since it only beats the Escape 2.0L by 1 mpg ( combined ), how does everyone think those facts will impact the split between 1.6L and 2.0L sales?

None of the expected best selling, highest mpg engine models have shown up at dealers, while the other two engines have been shipped, and with EPA/DOT stickers on them. Why would Ford be holding the 1.6L back? It could be a simple matter of the EPA test data not agreeing with the data obtained by Ford during their testing. It could be a last minute technical glitch in the 1.6L that needed fixing. Either of those, or variations thereof, would be normal to the business, I should think. A longer ( probably much longer ) shot would be that for one reason or another, Ford wanted the extra mpg margin afforded by the auto start/stop system as an option for the 1.6L Escape, and since the 1.6L Fusion was months away, decided to push that $295(?) option into the Escape. A hardly likely probability. A curious situation.

Something Not Right? Other postings cite 2.0L engines delivered to dealers with window stickers showing fuel efficiency ratings, but: EPA does not show any ratings for the 2013 escape model line. 2013 brochures still N/A online at Ford site. No reports of 1.6L models at dealers. Normal state of things with a new model introduction, or indicative of a hiccup in the 1.6L engine/fuel rating situation? Possibly, but not necessarily related: I've continued to wonder why the 2013 Escape 1.6L does not incorporate auto start/stop whereas the 2013 Fusion 1.6L does? Johndixs

My reading of the order guide is that auto start stop is not being offered on either of the Eco-boost engines. Is that correct? Thanks, Johndixs

Entered in error. Apologies, johndixs

Thanks, SVT. I share your skepticism re the Continentals, having had poor performance out of the Continentals on my 2008 Mariner Hybrid ( good treadwear, but all else was out of line with the car, which has been terrific ). Thanks, Johndixs

Does anyone know which specific Continentals are on the SEL ( 235/50-18 )? Thanks, Johndixs