65fairlane Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 As a very happy 2008 Mariner Hybrid owner, I found it surprising that Ford would discontinue the Escape Hybrid. I can see that the switch to EcoBoost would mean a hybrid powertrain redesign or the need to continue the old hybrid powertrain and that could present problems. But even if the new engine gets equivalent highway fuel economy, there's no way it could match the hybrid in city driving. In addition, looking at gas prices near $4 today, I think it might be time to give reconsidering the decision some serious thought. If we have any kind of major geopolitical problem in the Middle East, gas could easily rise to $5 or $6. Hybrids would be worth their weight in gold. I've got 70,000 miles on my vehicle now, and no desire to change to anything else. But this vehicle convinced me to move from a Japanese import to Ford, and if I need a new one I'd buy a new model Escape Hybrid to replace it. It seems strange that Ford would want to pull the rug out from customers like me by not offering that option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timf Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The Escape Hybrid was discontinued because the C-Max is replacing it. Ford has shifted the C-Max strategy greatly since they first introduced it to North America at the 2011 NAIAS. It is essentially going to be Ford's Prius. They have scrapped the minivan-style model and gas-only engines completely. The overall dimensions should be very similar to the new Escape aside from being a couple inches shorter, so it is reasonable that they don't want two 5-passenger crossover hybrids competing against each other. The only downside is the 6-12 month lapse between the Escape Hybrid's production ending and the C-Max starting up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlucarelli Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 How did you get 70,000 miles? At 37 months of ownership, my 2006 FEH spun a main bearing @ 65,000 miles, requiring a $7,000 engine replacement. (Alas! The extended warranty ended @ 60,000 miles. "Too Bad", said Ford.) Ironically, the remanufactured engine has a BETTER warranty than the original engine. Ironically, the cost of my new FEH + $7,000 is MORE than a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I should have bought the Toyota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeeman84 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 My wife was very happy with her Escape Hybrid. After five years, she was just short of 100,000 trouble free miles. Loved the vehicle until it was totaled in a accident. Ordered a 2013 Escape SEL with 1.6 EcoBoost to replace it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I agree. I have 58000 miles on my 2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD, purchased in March of 2007, and I'm sorely disappointed that Ford has dropped the Escape/Mariner Hybrid. I will thus be buying, probably, the 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Hybrid AWD in the fall of next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I agree. I have 58000 miles on my 2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD, purchased in March of 2007, and I'm sorely disappointed that Ford has dropped the Escape/Mariner Hybrid. I will thus be buying, probably, the 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Hybrid AWD in the fall of next year. Just curious, why did you buy your hybrid? Was it for fuel economy? If so, then why would you be disappointed in buying a non-hybrid Escape that gets BETTER fuel economy, yet costs less to buy? If you bought it for image alone, then I fully understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaldo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Just curious, why did you buy your hybrid? Was it for fuel economy? If so, then why would you be disappointed in buying a non-hybrid Escape that gets BETTER fuel economy, yet costs less to buy? If you bought it for image alone, then I fully understand. How do we know the new Escapes will be superior to the old hybrids' MPG? AFAIK, the EPA numbers have not been released yet. Hybrids also had the smooth e-CVT, low maintenance, and 4WD availability with some decent off-road clearance. 2013+ Escapes seem to be spec'd as an on-road vehicle. I agree with Transpower, the Outlander should have excellent mpg with its next-generation PHEV drivetrain. Looks like Ford has decided to go straight up against Prius with their C-max instead of finding an uncrowded segment of the market. Edited February 29, 2012 by Donaldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) How do we know the new Escapes will be superior to the old hybrids' MPG? AFAIK, the EPA numbers have not been released yet. Hybrids also had the smooth e-CVT, low maintenance, and 4WD availability with some decent off-road clearance. 2013+ Escapes seem to be spec'd as an on-road vehicle. I agree with Transpower, the Outlander should have excellent mpg with its next-generation PHEV drivetrain. Looks like Ford has decided to go straight up against Prius with their C-max instead of finding an uncrowded segment of the market. Ford Media is publishing that the 1.6L EcoBoost will get better mpg's than the current Hybrid, it doesn't elaborate if that means combined or highway only. The Outlander Sport is rated at 24/31 mpg's and my guess is that's at least what the 2.0L EcoBoost will get, with the 1.6L getting in the 26/38 range. That's just a guess, don't flame me. Ground clearance for the 2012 Escape is 8.3", Outlander 8.5" and the 2013 Escape 7.9", not a lot of difference unless 6/10th of an inch keeps you from getting hung up. I had Freestyle and agree the CVT is a nice tranny, but limited to lower torque and HP. One other important thing for me, Mitsubishi is the company that built the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. My Father's ship was torpedoed and he nearly lost his life during WWII. Edited February 29, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Just curious, why did you buy your hybrid? Was it for fuel economy? If so, then why would you be disappointed in buying a non-hybrid Escape that gets BETTER fuel economy, yet costs less to buy? If you bought it for image alone, then I fully understand. I would think that a third or fourth generation 2013 Escape Hybrid would get about 35mpg city and maybe same highway so how is the EB Escape going to beat that? I would say EB Escape will be 23mpg city and 33mpg highway. I have noticed on some new vehicle stickers mixed mpg is being given much more attention and city and highway much less which is good. Ford likes to focus more on highway in their advertising like drivers take vacations every week or so. All I'm interested in what mileage will I get in everyday driving around town. SoFord screwed up here IMO...the Escape is hugely popular and the C-Max is unknown entry in American market. Hopefully it will work out for Ford, but the Escape Hybrid will be missed just like the Fusion Hybrid would have been missed if ended also. Look at the mileage numbers on 2013 Fusion Hybrid. Fusion and Escape Hybrids were nice one, two punch for Ford, and now they finally have better supply of batteries and hybrid trans. Ford is also bragging about Lincoln MKZ hybrid sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ford Media is publishing that the 1.6L EcoBoost will get better mpg's than the current Hybrid, it doesn't elaborate if that means combined or highway only. The Outlander Sport is rated at 24/31 mpg's and my guess is that's at least what the 2.0L EcoBoost will get, with the 1.6L getting in the 26/38 range. That's just a guess, don't flame me. Ground clearance for the 2012 Escape is 8.3", Outlander 8.5" and the 2013 Escape 7.9", not a lot of difference unless 6/10th of an inch keeps you from getting hung up. I had Freestyle and agree the CVT is a nice tranny, but limited to lower torque and HP. One other important thing for me, Mitsubishi is the company that built the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. My Father's ship was torpedoed and he nearly lost his life during WWII. Ford is talking highway mileage only. EB Escape will get 33mpg highway, but no better than I4 2012 Fusion city. A fourth generation Escape hybrid would get over 30mpg city easily while EB Escape will only be about 23mpg. I would predict 35mpg city for 2013 Escape using 2013 Fusion Hybrid as guide. So new Escape Hybrid would average over 32mpg in mixed driving while a EB Escape will be about 26-27mpg in mixed driving. Also, I'm sure you would be able to get new Escape Hybrid up to 50mph or so on battery power only when temps are on warmer side with its better battery that comes with each new generation hybrid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The 2.0L EcoBoost in the Explorer gets, 20/28/23 at 4448# and the Edge, 21/30/24 at 4056#. With better aerodynamics and less weight, I believe the 2.0L Escape will see 23/33/26 and the 1.6 will be at 25/36/28. The 2012 Escape Hybrid is rated at 34/31/32, so Ford is fudging the numbers a little and using highway mpg's for their comparison when they state the 1.6 will get better mpg's than the current hybrid. Technically, they're not deceiving the buyer, but the benefit of a hybrid is with city driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaldo Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The Outlander Sport is rated at 24/31 mpg's and my guess is that's at least what the 2.0L EcoBoost will get, with the 1.6L getting in the 26/38 range. That's just a guess, don't flame me. Ground clearance for the 2012 Escape is 8.3", Outlander 8.5" and the 2013 Escape 7.9", not a lot of difference unless 6/10th of an inch keeps you from getting hung up. I had Freestyle and agree the CVT is a nice tranny, but limited to lower torque and HP. One other important thing for me, Mitsubishi is the company that built the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. My Father's ship was torpedoed and he nearly lost his life during WWII. The OP is talking about the plug-in (next-gen) hybrid Outlander which should have the best MPG of any SUV when it comes out (unless the Mazda diesel CX-5 takes the title). I'm sure you'd be delighted to see all of the Mitsubishi vehicles and products currently paid for by your US Government tax dollars at its Japanese military bases. I know I enjoy using them when I'm there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 The OP is talking about the plug-in (next-gen) hybrid Outlander which should have the best MPG of any SUV when it comes out (unless the Mazda diesel CX-5 takes the title). I'm sure you'd be delighted to see all of the Mitsubishi vehicles and products currently paid for by your US Government tax dollars at its Japanese military bases. I know I enjoy using them when I'm there. I re-read the OP and didn't see anything about the next gen Hybrid Outlander... I have no control over what our Government does, (regardless of who I vote for), it's probably a low bid contract for those vehicles. I can only control what I say and do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) I re-read the OP and didn't see anything about the next gen Hybrid Outlander... I have no control over what our Government does, (regardless of who I vote for), it's probably a low bid contract for those vehicles. I can only control what I say and do. Japan pays a significant portion of maintaining those bases and the equipment. ratio of expenses allocated to U.S. forces in Japan. Although under the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement Japan’s financialresponsibility for contributing to the construction and renovation of U.S. bases in Japan is not clear, the Japanese side has voluntarily supported these initiatives through omoiyari yosan or “sympathy budgetary allocations.” Through these allocations, Japan has provided a cumulative total of over $20 billion for the construction and renovation of U.S. bases under the “Facility Improvement Program” (FIP). A large proportion of this is housing-related, such as accommodation for families of U.S. military personnel, but it also includes entertainment facilities, hospitals, repair of ships and aircraft, and the construction of port facilities. These efforts add up to 12,000 construction or renovation projects on sixty-six U.S. bases throughout Japan. Mitsubishi is the company that built the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor. My Father's ship was torpedoed and he nearly lost his life during WWII. Better check your history. Mitbuishi built the fighters used as carrier borne aircraft in Dec. 1941. Nakajima built the carrier torpedo fleet during that era. Mitsubishi aircraft of that type were land based. Edited March 5, 2012 by rscalzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) My recollection of World History needed some refresher so I lifted this from Wikipedia. They used to teach this when I was in school. The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was a long-range fighter aircraft operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) from 1940 to 1945. The A6M was designated as the Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter, and also designated as the Mitsubishi A6M Rei-sen and Mitsubishi Navy 12-shi Carrier Fighter. The first attack wave of 183 planes was launched north of Oahu, led by Commander Mitsuo Fuchida. It included: 1st Group (targets: battleships and aircraft carriers)50 Nakajima B5NN Kate bombers armed with 800 kg (1760 lb) armor piercing bombs, organized in four sections 40 B5N bombers armed with Type 91 torpedoes, also in four sections [*]2nd Group – (targets: Ford Island and Wheeler Field 54 Aichi D3A Val dive bombers armed with 550 lb (249 kg) general purpose bombs[*]3rd Group – (targets: aircraft at Ford Island, Hickam Field, Wheeler Field, Barber's Point, Kaneohe) 45 Mitsubishi A6M Zeke fighters for air control and strafing. Now back to the topic: End of Escape Hybrid, A good idea? Edited March 5, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was a long-range fighter aircraft operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) from 1940 to 1945. The A6M was designated as the Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter, and also designated as the Mitsubishi A6M Rei-sen and Mitsubishi Navy 12-shi Carrier Fighter. The first attack wave of 183 planes was launched north of Oahu, led by Commander Mitsuo Fuchida. It included: 1st Group (targets: battleships and aircraft carriers)50 Nakajima B5NN Kate bombers armed with 800 kg (1760 lb) armor piercing bombs, organized in four sections 40 B5N bombers armed with Type 91 torpedoes, also in four sections [*]2nd Group – (targets: Ford Island and Wheeler Field 54 Aichi D3A Val dive bombers armed with 550 lb (249 kg) general purpose bombs[*]3rd Group – (targets: aircraft at Ford Island, Hickam Field, Wheeler Field, Barber's Point, Kaneohe) 45 Mitsubishi A6M Zeke fighters for air control and strafing. My recollection of World History needed some refresher so I lifted this from Wikipedia. They used to teach this when I was in school. Now back to the topic: End of Escape Hybrid, A good idea? Val dive bombers where manufactured by Aichi Aircraft., not Mitsubishi. The A6M series didn't carry torpedoes.By your old numbers, less 25 percent were actually manufactured by Mitsubishi. For that matter, you better not own anything made by Nikon as that is a Mitsubishi company. Look under the hood of many motor vehicles and you'll find components made by Mitsubishi Electronics, Heavy Industries or Mitsubishi HVAC which make components for systems around the world. Next time you're on an escalator, check who made it. Feel free to live in the past. Either way you'll never avoid the fact of glottalization. Recent weather events in Japan shut down the production of the Expedition and Super duty truck lines. .Better avoid them. Either way, I'd have no problem with parts from them. i do have an issue with all the Chinese parts on Harley Davidson's that claim to be "Made in USA".. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Moved by me to new 2013 mpg's topic. Edited March 8, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
65fairlane Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Some additional information on my reasons for purchase. I wanted the best mileage possible with AWD and decent ground clearance. I really use the AWD in snow and ice, and also drive a lot on gravel and dirt roads and found the ground clearance to be a real benefit. I have not heard if the C-Max will offer those features. 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.