transitman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I thought I'd start a new topic for discussing mpg's. I know it will be a while until real numbers are posted, but here's something to start it off. Plus, that End of Escape Hybrid thread veered way off course. Here's a video where a Ford rep mentions the expected fuel economy of the 1.6L and 2.0L EcoBoost. The discussion on fuel economy begins at 33 seconds. Very unofficial, but probably very close. Of course depending on how you drive, what you haul, etc etc., your mileage may vary. I tend to be pretty light on the throttle and coast to stops so I'm hoping to eek out a little more than 28/29. Edited March 8, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator06 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I thought I'd start a new topic for discussing mpg's. I know it will be a while until real numbers are posted, but here's something to start it off. Plus, that End of Escape Hybrid thread veered way off course. Here's a video where a Ford rep mentions the expected fuel economy of the 1.6L and 2.0L EcoBoost. The discussion on fuel economy begins at 33 seconds. Very unofficial, but probably very close. Of course depending on how you drive, what you haul, etc etc., your mileage may vary. I tend to be pretty light on the throttle and coast to stops so I'm hoping to eek out a little more than 28/29. I'm finding it harder to find reasons to keep my 06 Fusion. Normally trading up to a SUV from a car you expect to lose mpg as a compromise of gaining the additional room and hauling capacity, but in this case I'd actually be getting better mpg AND more power. It's almost hard to believe. Way to go Ford! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator06 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Delete. Edited March 8, 2012 by Gator06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I thought I'd start a new topic for discussing mpg's. I know it will be a while until real numbers are posted, but here's something to start it off. Plus, that End of Escape Hybrid thread veered way off course. Here's a video where a Ford rep mentions the expected fuel economy of the 1.6L and 2.0L EcoBoost. The discussion on fuel economy begins at 33 seconds. Very unofficial, but probably very close. Of course depending on how you drive, what you haul, etc etc., your mileage may vary. I tend to be pretty light on the throttle and coast to stops so I'm hoping to eek out a little more than 28/29. You figure if they can hit 29 on the highway (Ford has recently been underestimating their vehicles), that's quite a bit better than the current 25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaldo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Shouldn't the 2013 Escape AWD 2.0's MPG be close to the Range Rover Evoque's 18/28? Similar powertrain/chassis. Of course FWD Escape should be a few points better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 The numbers he states are probably a little low for the CYA factor. Public spokesman don't talk off the cuff, everything they say on camera is scripted. My hope is that actual real world numbers will be slightly higher than what he said. Under good summer driving conditions, I have always been able to get better mpg's than the sticker estimates. Using cruise control, keeping it at reasonable highway speeds, a light foot from stops and coasting to stop lights goes a long way in beating posted mpg numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hahnk37 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The numbers he states are probably a little low for the CYA factor. Public spokesman don't talk off the cuff, everything they say on camera is scripted. My hope is that actual real world numbers will be slightly higher than what he said. Under good summer driving conditions, I have always been able to get better mpg's than the sticker estimates. Using cruise control, keeping it at reasonable highway speeds, a light foot from stops and coasting to stop lights goes a long way in beating posted mpg numbers. Considering the Edge gets 30 Hwy, the escape better beat it by a mpg or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 There are also some things you may not want to do because they may reduce your fuel economy: • Use the speed control in hilly terrain. Reading through the 2013 Escape Owner's Manual, I came across the above statement. Are you supposed to let the car slow to what ever it will when in hilly terrain, not pressing the accelerator or letting the cruise downshift to hold at a steady speed. I can see where kicking it down to gain or maintain a steady speed would use more fuel, but what are you supposed to do, let it slow (pissing off everyone behind you) and gradually accelerating to get back to speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Has Ford released any official mpg numbers for the 2013? I found this on a Motor Trend site, I can't believe these are accurate, they must be based on the previous model, or just a guess. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2013/ford/escape/s_sport_utility/1270/comparisons/trim/showall.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Has Ford released any official mpg numbers for the 2013? I found this on a Motor Trend site, I can't believe these are accurate, they must be based on the previous model, or just a guess. http://www.motortren...im/showall.html They just copied last year's models numbers over. On your speed control question, it is more efficient to "manually" control the speed in hills and let the speed decrease going up the hill, then let off the accelerator going down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 They just copied last year's models numbers over. On your speed control question, it is more efficient to "manually" control the speed in hills and let the speed decrease going up the hill, then let off the accelerator going down. Yes, and you don't have to let it slow down to a crawl, just ease the pedal down a bit, but not enough to downshift. It makes a world of difference. I can increase fuel economy towing my fifth wheel by 1+ MPG by not using cruise in hilly areas. That's a big difference when you talk about going from 9 to 10, or 10 to 11! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndixs Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 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 Normal. Websites are the last things to be updated. The window sticker is gospel. The 2.0L doesn't have start/stop for the same reason as the Fusion - the 1.6L is being offered as the fuel economy leader while the 2.0L is the performance version. I'm sure there is added cost to the start/stop feature so they don't use it across the line. Could also be a parts shortage. I'd expect it to become more standard in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndixs Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbramsey5898 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 We now have EPA numbers on http://www.fueleconomy.gov for all 2013 Escape engines except the 1.6 liter EB. http://goo.gl/zVHfV On Regular Gasoline, EPA lists mileage as follows for the 2.5 liter normally aspirated engine: 22 City, 25 Combined, 31 Highway On Regular Gasoline, EPA lists mileage as follows for the 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine: 22 City, 25 Combined, 30 Highway http://goo.gl/Jp7SW On Regular Gasoline, EPA lists mileage as follows for the 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine: 21 City, 24 Combined, 28 Highway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I thought this was interesting data. Look how close the MPG's are to each other. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32236&id=32368&id=32235&id=32244 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 From what I've read, which may still be speculative, the 1.6L is projected to get 33 mpg highway. With only 3 mpg highway separating the 1.6L and the 2.0L, I'm glad I went with the added hp of the 2.0L. mettech's post is interesting. Despite the different weights and aerodynamics of each vehicle, the EcoBoost is matching the 3.5/3.7L V6 in mpg's. Just shows the efficiency of the new EFI turbo 4 cylinder engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2013-ford-escape-1-6l-ecoboost-officially-rated-at-23-33-mpg/ It's official: 1.6L= 23/33 2.0L=22/30 2.4L=22/31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 1.6L might not be worth the extra money for 2 MPG highway gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) 1.6L might not be worth the extra money for 2 MPG highway gain. But then that only leaves the S as an option. I haven't seen the two side by side, but the difference between the S and SE seems worth the extra $2600. The S is a pretty basic, stripped down version without any options to choose from other than a SYNC upgrade, also, I don't care for the black door handles and mirror caps. If that's all someone wants or needs for a fleet or basic transportation then you're right. These numbers also make be believe that Titanium sales may be higher than predicted. For buyers who do want extra features or the ability to add options, a small 2 to 3 mpg increase over the smaller engines may push people towards the more powerful 2.0L. Edited April 27, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timf Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Especially as someone who does mostly city driving, the fuel savings of the 1.6L doesn't justify the decreased performance or giving up the Titanium exclusive features. It's disappointing they couldn't find a way to get city numbers anywhere close to what the Hybrid used to offer. Maybe if they added the auto start/stop feature of the Fusion it would help. I'll still take a look at the Escape when my Edge is up in 2014, but I was expecting more from the smaller size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt in blue Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 With the 1.6 EPA numbers, I'm not at all sorry I went 2.0. Even though I wanted the towing capacity of the 2.0, giving up some mileage made it a hard choice for me. With the numbers, I'm not at all sorry that I went 2.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted April 27, 2012 Author Share Posted April 27, 2012 With the 1.6 EPA numbers, I'm not at all sorry I went 2.0. Even though I wanted the towing capacity of the 2.0, giving up some mileage made it a hard choice for me. With the numbers, I'm not at all sorry that I went 2.0. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I personally feel the EB16 will do fine. Sure the EB20 has more usable power and not much of a FE penalty. After building and pricing the Escape the EB20 might be just enough to be out of range budget wise. However, I wouldn't compare the EB16 application here to say the EB20 in the Explorer. In that case, it's adequate however, I thought Ford was getting away from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted May 6, 2012 Author Share Posted May 6, 2012 The Ford web site spec page has been updated to show the mpg numbers. http://www.ford.com/suvs/escape/specifications/ 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.