range Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 LINK "Ford is a leader in safety and fuel economy - not even Toyota or Honda can match the new Escape's safety and fuel efficiency ratings," said Susan Cischke, Ford's senior vice president of Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering. "Ford has more five-star-rated vehicles than any other automaker, and we've committed to lead or be at the top of every segment in which we compete in terms of fuel efficiency." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
range Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 (edited) FORD ESCAPE EARNS 5-STARS, TOPS TOYOTA AND HONDA COMBINED SAFETY AND FUEL EFFICIENCY RATINGS - 2009 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner earn government's top 5-star ratings for front- and side-impact tests - adding to Ford's leading number of five-star vehicles. - This fall, Escape and Mariner add a new 171-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine with enhanced performance and fuel economy better or equal to the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV-4. - Escape Hybrid and Mariner Hybrid also achieve five-star crash ratings. - Ford plans to double hybrid sales in 2009 on the strength of safety ratings that out-perform Toyota Prius. DEARBORN, Mich., Aug. 18, 2008 - The 2009 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner compact sport utility vehicles added to Ford's leading number of top-safety-rated vehicles by earning five stars in each of the government's crash-worthiness tests. The results top the Toyota RAV-4 and, with the 2009 Escape's improved fuel efficiency, offer better combined safety and fuel efficiency ratings than the Honda CR-V. 2009 Escape Hybrid and Mariner Hybrid also achieved five-star ratings, the highest possible scores, in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests to outpace the Toyota Highlander Hybrid and Toyota Prius. The Escape Hybrid arrived in 2005 as the world's only hybrid sport utility vehicle and today remains the only sport utility to offer at least 30 mpg city and highway ratings. ................................. Edited August 19, 2008 by range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
range Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 2009 Ford Escape, 2009 Mazda Tribute, and 2009 Mercury Mariner: good performance in front, side, and rear tests and standard electronic stability control Revamped Escape is a winner: This small SUV was re-engineered for the 2009 model year. Among the changes are modifications to the frontal airbags and safety belts plus structural changes to improve occupant protection in frontal crashes. The new Escape improves from acceptable to good in the Institute's frontal offset crash test. A new seat design improves the rear crash protection rating from acceptable to good. Side airbags, optional before 2008 models, now are standard. IIHS Top Safety Pick - 09 Escape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
range Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 and released today from IIHS: 2009 Ford Escape, 2009 Mazda Tribute, and 2009 Mercury Mariner: good performance in front, side, and rear tests and standard electronic stability control Revamped Escape is a winner: This small SUV was re-engineered for the 2009 model year. Among the changes are modifications to the frontal airbags and safety belts plus structural changes to improve occupant protection in frontal crashes. The new Escape improves from acceptable to good in the Institute's frontal offset crash test. A new seat design improves the rear crash protection rating from acceptable to good. Side airbags, optional before 2008 models, now are standard. IIHS Top Safety Pick - 09 Escape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Good to see Ford making progress and getting positive headlines! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. They already do. See attached screenshot from FuelEconomy.gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. Just a regular ray of sunshine, aren't you. Here, got you something that gets great mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Saw this coming. Good job, especially how marginally the Escape used to perform. It's nice that I can now recommend the Escape to folks (including myself). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAdams Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 What exactly is a combined fuel efficiency and safety rating? Given that the Escape manages 1 additional highway MPG (but the same city figure and 23 combined figure) as the CR-V and they both have 5-star front and side crash safety ratings it seems a bit disingenuous to group these two items together for what amounts to marketing schtick. Would it have been any less impressive to say the Escape acheives a 5-star safety rating and has better mileage than the CR-V? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 What exactly is a combined fuel efficiency and safety rating? Given that the Escape manages 1 additional highway MPG (but the same city figure and 23 combined figure) as the CR-V and they both have 5-star front and side crash safety ratings it seems a bit disingenuous to group these two items together for what amounts to marketing schtick. Would it have been any less impressive to say the Escape acheives a 5-star safety rating and has better mileage than the CR-V? The fuel economy ratings and safety ratings are two completely separate items. The wording is just a little odd. The point of the article was that the Escape gets better fuel economy while also offering better safety than the Toyota and Honda competitors. They didn't invent some weird new "combined safety/fuel economy" overall rating system or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) What exactly is a combined fuel efficiency and safety rating? Given that the Escape manages 1 additional highway MPG (but the same city figure and 23 combined figure) as the CR-V and they both have 5-star front and side crash safety ratings it seems a bit disingenuous to group these two items together for what amounts to marketing schtick. Would it have been any less impressive to say the Escape acheives a 5-star safety rating and has better mileage than the CR-V? It is worded a little screwy, but it conveys the point just the same. So I really don't see the big deal here. We probably wouldn't even be having this conversation if Honda caught up with basically everyone else and figured out what a 6 speed auto is. Edited August 20, 2008 by Michael Reynolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 They already do. See attached screenshot from FuelEconomy.gov. Wonder why Ford did not quote the epa mpg figures in their press release? I would have. Pretty good accomplishment in the face of some pretty stiff competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Wonder why Ford did not quote the epa mpg figures in their press release? I would have. Pretty good accomplishment in the face of some pretty stiff competition. I don't think you can quote fuel efficiency without it being verified utilizing gov't tests. So I think it goes without saying. Although, I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 They already do. See attached screenshot from FuelEconomy.gov. Apples to oranges. You are comparing the 4cyl Escape to the 6cyl Rav4. Even then, a 1mpg difference is not an improvement at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Apples to oranges. You are comparing the 4cyl Escape to the 6cyl Rav4. Even then, a 1mpg difference is not an improvement at all. My bad. FuelEconomy.gov didn't have the 2009 4 cylinder numbers and I didn't notice that fact. However, the 2008 4 cylinder/automatic is rated at 21/27, still below the Escape's HWY MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) Even then, a 1mpg difference is not an improvement at all. But that is only true if it is Ford. If the RAV4 had 1 MPG better than the Escape, the negatards would be bashing the Escape to no end. Just doing a little math, using highway numbers and going from 26-27 MPG is ~$6.00/month in gas savings for 15,000 miles a year @ $3.50/gallon gas. Using city numbers and going from 20-21 MPG is ~$10.50/month in fuel savings. Is that going to make you rich? No. Is it somewhat of an improvement? Yes it is, and if fuel economy is a huge deciding factor for many as it is now, 1 MPG difference on the sticker will sell a lot of vehicles! Edited August 20, 2008 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldZephyr Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Congratulations to the engineers and others who redesigned the Escap/Mariner/Tribute so that it passed these tests with flying colors. Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 My bad. FuelEconomy.gov didn't have the 2009 4 cylinder numbers and I didn't notice that fact. However, the 2008 4 cylinder/automatic is rated at 21/27, still below the Escape's HWY MPG. Still apples to oranges. You are comparing an engine that is not in the 2009 Rav4 to an engine that is in the 2009 Ford Escape. The 4cyl engine that is in the 2009 Rav4 is a 2.5-liter 4cyl. producing 179 horsepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkarlo Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 They already do. See attached screenshot from FuelEconomy.gov. Good with that, as well as the redesign i think the Escape can solidify it's self as the #1 mid CUV. I'll settle for any near term battle that Ford can win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 (edited) Still apples to oranges. You are comparing an engine that is not in the 2009 Rav4 to an engine that is in the 2009 Ford Escape. The 4cyl engine that is in the 2009 Rav4 is a 2.5-liter 4cyl. producing 179 horsepower. Until they announce the 2009 RAV4 I4 numbers, it's the only comparison we have. But back to your original comment: ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. The EPA does back up Ford's MPG estimates per FuelEconomy.gov. Edited August 20, 2008 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Still apples to oranges. You are comparing an engine that is not in the 2009 Rav4 to an engine that is in the 2009 Ford Escape. The 4cyl engine that is in the 2009 Rav4 is a 2.5-liter 4cyl. producing 179 horsepower. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/06/2009-ra...er-base-engine/ Estimated at 22/28, right there with the Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/06/2009-ra...er-base-engine/ Estimated at 22/28, right there with the Escape. ...assuming the EPA backs up Toyota on its mpg estimates. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) ...assuming the EPA backs up Ford on its mpg estimates. What a f-ing idiot. Edited August 21, 2008 by NickF1011 Language. Happy P? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.