azulejost

To be honest, I looked at the rear mounted battery in a regular Hybrid, but our PHEV has the optional minispare that fills that area. Turns out the battery is in the same spot, but under the spare wheel. Interesting packaging.

To update after a frustrating week confirming many widely held negative opinions about the auto industry: Ford's online chat Sunday evening advised me to call to speak with EV Department on Monday; when I called Monday, no one would connect me or provide explanation as to why aside from saying "you just need to take it to the dealer" or transferring me to many people that also were not in a position to be helpful (Marketing, Ford's contracted EVSE/Charging Station supplier) Two calls to the local dealership's service department to schedule an appointment and discuss my expectation for a loaner to be provided (which likely was present from the factory and not identified or ignored then undisclosed to us at purchase) were not returned . The selling dealer offered no apology or assistance since I am now out of state--you'll just have to go to a local dealer. Ford via a Customer Experience Specialist ultimately offered to reimburse a rental until the service department would look at the vehicle in 2 weeks. No arrangements to accelerate an initial diagnostic evaluation of the problem sooner than the dealer's next regularly available appointment. To top it off, Sync would not update via wifi or USB--I was hoping that updating Sync may reset some electrical issue and potentially resolve the charging problem though it's probably not that simple. Does anyone know if you start downloading the update via wifi if that prevents a subsequent update via USB? I left the USB drive connected, car running for almost an hour (recommended 30-35 minutes), and never got an alert that the update occurred. And there was no log file added to the USB drive. In EV Charge mode and during regenerative braking, it does charge the battery and then can run on battery power alone.

We've been searching for a PHEV and finally found one available in Maryland. It's my wife's car, and she flew up to take delivery yesterday. The salesman told her there was some issue with the dealership's EVSE in explaining that the car was not fully charged after being plugged in overnight for the delivery. Fast forward a day, and when we plugged in the Escape PHEV there is no charging. It gives "charge station fault" by the charging indicator with 30-seconds of flashing orange light before turning off. We have tried the 240V EVSE and 120V EVSE we use for our BEV and other PHEV which are working normally today and indicated no faults only that the car is connected but not charging. The included Ford "convenience cord" 120V EVSE likewise shows no error/warning lights aside from being plugged in. It's a bit of a stretch I'm sure as few of these as are out there at the moment, but has anyone else experienced this? It seems we need a trip to a local dealer after 1 day and under 900 miles of driving...not the start we were looking for when coming back to Ford.

While we don't need it right away, I think a minivan makes a lot of sense for a family with intentions to continue growing. I am interested in the Transit Connect Wagon, but it seems to be held up a bit and will be lacking many of the convenience options popular among minivans like intelligent access, power sliding doors and hatch, and rear seat entertainment options. I'm not sure those would be enough to keep it off of my list, but my wife says it's too boxy and commercial to be a family vehicle. We'll see. On top of that, the Titanium TCW to reasonably comparably equipped full-size minivan price delta is only on the order of $2-4,000. Yes, that's about 10% more, but the larger size, substantially more powerful and capable engine, and more established foothold in the market could keep the TCW from making significant headway, at least for the 7-passenger version as a minivan alternative. I went to the Washington Auto Show over the weekend and looked at the minivan options. Without driving them, the Honda wins hands down from an interior and practicality standpoint. I'd put the ChryCo. models next, then Toyota and Nissan. I was surprised at how inadequate the interior of the Sienna was--low quality dash and the 8th seat (2nd row middle) is this removable contraption that seemed like an uncomfortable afterthought. It surprises me how many of the minivans lack the 2nd row middle seat considering it's the best spot for a car seat/small child. Also, why are top of the line minivans $45k without having ventilated seats when their CUV counterparts offer these? Hopefully someone will get on that by the time I decide to buy.

Bluebonnet, That's good to hear. I have yet to see one at a dealer, but Ford has a basic white XLT van on display at the Washington Auto Show. It was locked and stickered "Prototype vehicle. Locked for your protection." as though it could spontaneously combust if you were to get inside. I think it's a little odd to have that displayed when it is arriving at dealer lots and is listed among the other 2014 production models on Ford's website. If it were me, having a wagon model in Titanium trim in a color other than commercial white would have been a nice way to introduce it to the public since they haven't yet seen this body style in its predominantly commercial function. But I'm not in marketing.

Hopefully they will be showing up soon. If I could remember where the storage lot/"port" is in Baltimore--I assume the same lot that held our Escape when it came off the rail car--I'd consider going to have a look myself. I drove through the dealer lot in Silver Spring today but no sign of '14 TCs of Van or Wagon variety. Next week is Detroit then the Washington auto show starts only a week and a half later so it's looking like that will be the first chance for me to see them.

Based on my 2.0EB experience, the only way to exceed hwy numbers is to exclusively be highway driving at 50-60 mph without redlights, stopping for food or breaks, and avoiding using cruise so as to gain a bit of speed downhill and lose some going uphill. The highest full tank mpg I've had has been 24.x so I'd be skeptical so much getting above ratings in the real world with ethanol in the gas. If the Powershift allowed a bit more freedom in upshifting to allow lower rpm operation, I am confident mpg could be much better. I could happily accelerate shifting between 2000-2250 rpm and quickly upshift instead of having to be light with the throttle to avoid 3000+ rpm shifting. Really looking forward to seeing these show up on lots and at the auto shows in production trim.

The opposable wipers seem to add unneccesary complication to the wiper function. Everytime you lift them off the windshield to clean it during a fill up they shift around up and down a bit which is a nuisance. They're also less aesthetically pleasing in action than traditional tandem units. Perhaps that would be acceptable if the "rain-sensing" wipers would work with any regularity or predictability. I'd much prefer standard, preset intermittent speeds than the Escape's maddening wipers.

Yeah, it would be great to see a full-season sponsor like NAPA allow Roush or Penske add a team. Honestly, Penske seems more capable since the 17 still needs to develop before another team comes back. The lack of series sponsor for the moving on Nationwide series may be a better option with associate money on a Cup team, but there seems to be a good deal of discussion of Truex Jr. and NAPA going elsewhere as a package deal. Truex Jr. seems to be all class, far above the MWR organization and fitting for either clean-cut big time Ford organization.

As always, MKII, a helpful post. Interesting facts from the above link then compared to the Escape: - The EU 1.6L EB LWB (Grand Torneo Connect) 0-62 mph is 11.1 s. The 2.5L in the Escape is around 0.4 s slower than the 1.6L EB so nearly 11.5 s. However, the listed 0-60 mph times on US Escapes ranges 8.9 s for the 1.6L EB to 9.3 s for the 2.5L. - The curb weight of the EU 1.6L LWB is 3350 lbs. compared to 3502 lbs. for the 1.6L EB Escape. The 2.5L Escape is around 3515 lbs., so the TCW LWB is likely around 3363 lbs. - The Duratorq 1.6L is actually slightly lighter than the 1.6L EB, not what I would have expected for a diesel. I still haven't had a chance to test drive either a Fusion or Escape 2.5L (or 1.6L EB for that matter) after a couple of very negative Ford dealer experiences in the area, but a fully loaded TCW LWB may be quite a slug, especially in mountainous regions. I imagine the 0-60 mph time (not a great representation of real-world power for sure but easily obtainable data) will fall in the 9.x s range despite being 150 lbs. lighter than the Escape. The 0-62 mph times for the EU 1.6L EB just seem far longer than the specs would suggest compared to the US Escape, unless there is that much gearing difference involved which I admittedly have not researched. Regardless, I continue to look forward to the TC/TCW launch. Any idea how different, if any, the seat to ground height will be from the current TC?

The market is not comparing an EB with past 4.0s or 4.6s. The market looks at current, modern offerings and finds, as in this comparison, that for essentially equal power numbers across the four CUVs, Ford's EB approach returns worse economy than the NA engines. In the US, where there are no taxes based on displacement, there's no benefit of minimizing displacement while retaining the same power if economy suffers, particularly when acceleration and drivability are not better.

The Escape is merely adequate as a CUV other than its handling and technology (if you can come to terms with MFT). I've only driven the 2.0 EB AWD version, and at mid-range and top-end it has excellent power. Pulling off the line on the low end requires some significant throttle input and at minimum 2500 rpm to keep up with normal traffic flow, 3000 rpm for decently quick starts. More rpm means more time needing boost and more fuel burnt so quite bad city mpg. I imagine these scenarios are even worse on the 1.6 EB. The transmission also struggles to transition from coasting toward a redlight to engaging a gear and accelerating. The last mechanical issue for the moment are the brakes--I have found they are far from confidence inspiring in routine use as well. The interior storage faculties are another omission--a cubby forward of the gear selector or just below the headlight switch would go a long way instead of having to carefully rotate my phone under the emergency brake handle (at least it's rubberized there instead of the slick polished plastic trim everywhere else). Another of my frustrations with Ford is their choice of wheel styling--short the SEL or Titanium 18"-19" wheels, these 17" alloys' design makes them look even smaller and less appropriate for the tall sided Escape. Ford of Europe does a much better job in wheel design for their market. I've driven a CX-5 2.5 AWD and a Forester and have to say I would easily choose either over the Escape personally (the Escape is a better match for my wife, and since its her car that works out). The CX-5 handles just as well and while it lacks a turbo, it's 2.5 L Skyactiv 4-cyl provided more than adequate power in AWD guise that would likely be even better when on a lighter FWD model. Mazda's transmission was also far smoother and quicker in responding to changes. All reviews and personal accounts have shown significantly better fuel mileage than the EB as well. The Forester takes a different approach in it's no nonsense, utilitarian way. Handling is not as nimble and precise but this allows for a smoother ride and better tolerance of dusty roads and paths combined with better ground clearance. I think it's somewhat embarassing for all competitors than an AWD Subaru took the mpg prize, but thank their CVT and no-longer full-time true AWD system for this accomplishment. The interior will not convince people of the higher-trim models' cost as the leather is not of the same quality as in leather Escapes, but the trim is softer and more pleasant than the hard, smooth Escape plastic. It's not that the Escape is a bad choice, but I think Ford's insistence on EB powertrains is going to leave them behind if fuel economy ever becomes more than a passing concern to consumers. I would need to spend 1-2 weeks in any other EB product to gauge my own personal mpg before making a decision to buy one again.

I was having some concerns about the fuel economy of the 1.6 EB in general, so that takes that option away. I'm a little skeptical on the power characteristics of the 2.5 to appeal to consumers. As much as Ford pushes EcoBoost as the sweeping mpg success to US drivers, specifically excluding the option from the top-of-the-line Titanium seems suspect.

I thought MFT was a great idea when first unveiled and before I owned it. A few months of ownership and I was quite done with it's seemingly constant refusal to pair bluetooth to my phone. That made it hard to comply with the hands-free law and even when it would work there was a great deal of background noise that made conversations challenging at highway speed, compounded by heavy rain pounding on the panoramic roof. But since the winter update, I have to say the Escape's version of MFT with duplicate, stand-alone hard controls including climate control knobs is just fine. Gone are the Bluetooth issues although I continue to have the occasional GPS issue and find the map telling me I'm flying through grass and side streets while continuing down the main road. To me, the main thing is to have the radio and climate controls functional without relying on the touch screen. Additional features accessible only on the screen are fine, but those are things both frequently adjusted and long present on automobiles. Navigation almost always requires touch screen interaction or those annoying scroll knobs to enter addresses.

I have read some articles stating that the upcoming Transit Connect is not in line to receive a hybrid or Energi model. The explanation given seemed to center around the risk of undermining sales of the C-Max models. The other challenge is the fact the TC is built in Spain. Nevertheless, I think it is worth reconsidering. The biggest case for the Hybrid may come from the taxi market. Neither the 2.5 L or 1.6 L EcoBoost will return very impressive city mpg, and the LWB Taxi seems like a very good taxi package otherwise. I see more and more hybrid taxis around DC, so it seems like it would make sense. With the NYC Nissan deal being challenged, Ford could find a nice window to finally have something to replace Panther in the future people market. It's not yet planned, but a Titanium Taxi with leather, the panoramic roof, and darkly tinted windows could even make some noise in the livery market. An Energi model would be better for the personal market. I could see the Energi being exclusively LWB although the rear row of seats may not be possible with the large battery pack. If it were a 7-seater, there would likely be less cargo room than the C-Max (behind the rear row of seats for both). It may also be only a 2-row model on the LWB chassis to provide plenty of cargo room. The cargo floor wouldn't have the change to be flat which may be a bigger detriment than I realize. Either way, it would make for a highly fuel efficient family hauler rivaled only by the Prius V but with substantially more utility and the only sliding rear door Hybrid. The C-Max competition issue may be less serious than believed. I doubt many buyers or families that place a serious emphasis on cargo space can allow the C-Max as consideration at this point. They are forced into the mainstream minivan or crossover market and resigned to a life of twenty-something mpg on good days. This should have a nice 40 mpg EPA rating and reliably return 30s. Realistically, I think the 7-seat play would be important from a marketing perspective, and I wonder if that would be possible. Could the powertrain withstand the payload capacity and duty cycles I'm describing? What are your thoughts on future Hybrid/Energi models with both cargo room and people moving functionality?

I have been a fan of Ford's cooled seats since first experiencing them in a 2003 Lincoln LS V8. This isn't to debate the good and bad of them but rather to discuss the availability throughout the remainder of the product range. Adding them to the Fusion Titanium is certainly a start, and it seems that for an option listed for under $500, these could be offered further down the range. Of particular interest would be on the Escape and C-Max since the transaction prices are a fair bit higher than the Focus. The Transit Connect Wagon's marketing as the new alternative family hauler (read "minivan") would be great as well although that is less likely given the import from Spain. Any estimate as to when or if we could expect these additions? Hyundai/Kia have moved ventilated seats into their competitive models. I'm surprised it has been so slow to catch on among other automakers.

I cannot remember the last time I have seen the lack of option/package groups to base ordering around. As a consumer who will special order my next vehicle, it's great. I'm not sure about the engine choice--with city mpg of the EcoBoost struggling to meet the EPA city ratings, the 2.5L may stay at a high mix. It is standard even on the Titanium which certainly won't be the fleet trim not that it really adds a great deal over a fully optioned XLT. Both the Van and the Wagon are available with either rear cargo doors or rear lift gate in the XL and XLT trims according to the order guide. Only the Titanium Wagon forces you into one, the liftgate. I'm not sure which I prefer. Visibility is likely better out of the single piece of glass of the liftgate, but the doors would be quite useful. Plus, that liftgate looks enormous in photos.

How spendy are we talking? I'm thinking a fully loaded Titanium is probably looking at the $33-35k range. It lacks the 2.0 and AWD of the Escape but has seating for seven and a lot of cargo room. It's competing with the Mazda 5 which tops out under $27k with six seats and isn't a hybrid like the C-Max around $34k not counting the Energi. When should pricing information be public?

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like my decision will come down to XLT Wagon LWB vs. Titanium Wagon depending on if I decide I want the rear cargo doors or rear liftgate. I have to say that Ford seems to have done a nice job with making the options individually configurable instead of overly package groupedthe XLT Wagon only misses the chrome grille trim and dual-zone climate control from the Titanium.

It's been a few years since I last posted, and since then I went from thinking I may buy a Focus to my wife having a '13 Escape Titanium. It's a great vehicle other than the fuel economy, particularly in the city. Anyway, I've have become interested in the '14 TCW. I liked the versatility of the current TC when it launched, but it lacks the amenities to make it an acceptable family vehicle. The update adds the exterior and interior styling and, reportedly, features of the C1 Fords to make for an appealing package. Unfortunately, it seems the TCW has been delayed somewhat--initial news suggested Q3 but now I'm hearing early 2014. Does anyone have any updated information, final order guides/specs, or when to expect order banks and deliveries to begin?

I prefer the look of the 2012 Focus over the C, but this dark blue would be perfect on the Focus. I really hope Ford uses this blue over the Blue Flame used on the current Focus and upcoming Fiesta. It's just too bright for a car with the lines of the new Focus and its move upmarket. Deeper hues imply sophistication which it will certainly have.

The hatch doesn't turn me off by any means, but I am holding out hope it looks a bit better in person. I'm one of few people that thinks the EU upper grille and foglight housing could be improved upon. The upper grille on this photo is fine except the gap between hood and grille looks rather large. Since no spy photos have shown the foglights in these chrome housings I'm not commenting on them. The thick bars of the sedans's grille are consistent with spy photos though a more Verve-like look would be better in my eye. Don't think the sedan was going to be my cup of tea anyway. All is not lost, but five days from now when it's official at LA should be better. Plus, there are turn signals in the mirror--most thought those would be dropped for cost's sake.

I'd start off with an Ocean Blue 5-door Fiesta with the 16" 7-spoke EU alloy wheels. Sport suspension, 6-speed manual transmission, fog lights front and rear, integrated convex mirrors with turn signals, manually adjusted heated & cooled (cooled leather may be the best interior development for the car in the past 20 years in my mind) medium gray leather sport seats (with dark gray/black stitching), amber rear turn signals, and a narrowly-spaced dual round exhaust. The powertrain is where I'd like to get interesting, with either the 1.6L Duratorq diesel tuned to the 135-150 hp range (torque obviously wouldn't be an issue). To handle the torque, I'd love to revert to RWD, but an AWD setup may be the only thing remotely realistic. I'd prefer RWD just to help with weight as the diesel will add a bit extra up front anyway which would need balancing out in the suspension. Even if it were only FWD, a less powerfully tuned Duratorq would likely be just fine and still return 45-50 mpg consistently. Not anything impossible to accomplish here, but also not something that will roll off a US Ford showroom in the next 5 years.

Where'd you hear this? I have heard the PowerShift will be 6-speed but had only seen speculation/hope that the manual transmission would be. Some people seem to think the final drive will be lower to boost the mileage ratings at the cost of pep instead of investing in adding another cog. I definitely hope what you've heard is true--6-speeds are better than 5, especially based on all the reviews that say the Fiesta has decent power in EU trim but turns too many rpm at highway speeds.

Actually, they are unique to the NA market. Non-HID headlights are standard issue in China and the EU, but those units lack the amber side reflectors on the outer aspect of the housing. Also, the two inner bulb housings (including turn signal and inner headlight) appear to be the same in all versions, but the outer, main headlight housing has been modified to fill the entire housing. This gives the headlight a more unified appearance compared to the three distinct round sections from China and the EU. I think the projector beam unit from the EU looks best, but the NA non-projector light is an improvement on the EU or China's non-projector. I wonder if projector beams will be part of the highest trim line in the NA or if we will be limited to only this light. My experience has been projector beams provide improved visibility in the real world, so for that reason I am hopeful they are optional. The side vent which houses the fog light is interesting, and I cannot tell if these pictures show an actual fog light or if there is only a shadow created. If the fog light is so well integrated in the trapezoidal vent, I certainly applaud Ford for improving the design from that of the EU version. I would not be able to say the same, however, if amber rear turn signals are lost, but I'm holding out hope.