2013 Escape MPG's

[SENOJ]

getting 9.5 ltrs \100km in 2.0 l engine all highway kms only done 1000 km but hopeing it will get a lot better

[PajamaGuy]

Over the 1336 total miles on the car, checking each time I fill the tank, I’m getting 18.3 avg., with 25.1 high and 14.6 low. I’m happy with it, and I realize we do a lot of 75-80 or-get-run-over driving on the interstates.

 

The 25.1 was on a 350 mi trip of mostly 2-lane highways.

[rscalzo]

Taking a MPG reading on winter gas formulations is going to give lower readings on any vehicle.

Edited November 28, 2012 by rscalzo

[akirby]

Taking a MPH reading on winter gas formulations is going to give lower readings on any vehicle.

 

I think you meant MPG.

[Tazzel]

I went with the 1.6 SE because I did not like the turbo lag in the 2.0. It was pretty scary when I test drove it an punched the gas to enter the highway from an on ramp. I was pretty sure I would never tow and I wanted to use the extra money for other options, like Panorama sun roof, Ambient Lighting, Dual zone temperature contol, two tone doors and myford touch. Americas always think bigger is better. The only thing I really regret not getting is the Titanium 19 inch wheels, those are sweet!!!!!

[PajamaGuy]

1. As a 15 year Texaco Distributor, I know that Winter blend has about 1.7% less energy because of its higher Reid Vapor Pressure than Winter blends. That equates to something less than 0.5 mpg. - So yeah, in winter you get less, but not much...

2. As a very agressive driver of the 2.0 and a previous owner of a 1980 Vette with a 9 lb turbo, my Vette had lag, my 2.0 Escape has none, zero, nada, nyet.

[rscalzo]

That equates to something less than 0.5 mpg

 

That added to the significantly colder temps aren't going to give you the best numbers. No doubt manufacturers give themselves every advantage when they do the testing for the numbers.

 

Either way, as you said driving styles have more of an effect, especially with a turbo. I've owned several and the mileage was never great more due to my driving. Today my driving habits have gotten significantly more conservative and I routinely get 22 to 23 mpg combined on the 08 Escape V6. Never really checked the 2010 four cylinder.

[jcthorne]

Well with about 400 miles on the ODO, our mpg is averaging about 17.2. I sure hope it gets MUCH better as this is acutally less than the 17.8 we averaged over the 2 years we had our MKT Ecoboost 3.5. The MKT got within 1 mpg of the window sticker and I had hoped the Escape would to the same. So far, its not doing so good. Drives nice, good power for a 4 banger but needs to do better than this on gas for its size and hype.

[rscalzo]

previous owner of a 1980 Vette with a 9 lb turbo, my Vette had lag

 

The current ones are much smaller and spin up a lot quicker. The last turbo, a VW 1.8 had no lag at all. Too bad the car sucked.

 

Well with about 400 miles on the ODO, our mpg is averaging about 17.2.

 

I'd give it a lot more miles before even beginning to measure the mpg.

Edited November 28, 2012 by rscalzo

[blockisle9]

Over the 1336 total miles on the car, checking each time I fill the tank, I’m getting 18.3 avg., with 25.1 high and 14.6 low. I’m happy with it, and I realize we do a lot of 75-80 or-get-run-over driving on the interstates.

 

The 25.1 was on a 350 mi trip of mostly 2-lane highways.

I'm glad to see someone gets close to the same numbers as me. My average is a bit lower about 15.5. My low is 14. my high about 27.

Like I've posted in other threads, most of my driving is about 2-3 mile intervals, many shut down and restarts and hilly city terrane. My past 4 vehicles had close to the same numbers ( except lower on the highway)

1997 Explorer, V6 4X4, 2002 Explorer V6 4X4, 2005 Escape V6 4X4 and 2008 V6 AWD Edge

Lenny

[howie411]

This sort of makes me sick, 1/4 a tank left and the car reads 66 miles left. The car says I'm currently averaging 22 miles to the gallon. So I'm getting only 264 miles or so per tank of gas. I think I miss my hybrid.

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by howie411

[transitman]

Yes, your getting 264 miles a tank at 22 mpg's. It is what it is. What are the conditions that your getting 22 mpg's? When you drive all freeway and get 33 mpg's you'll get 495 miles per tank and if you slow to 55 and get 36 mpg's you'll get 540 miles per tank. In the summer with a different blend of gas and warmer temps you'll get 25 mpg's combined and 375 miles per tank.

[rscalzo]

You have a 15 gal. tank so at 22 mpg you're getting 330 miles to a dry tank. 22 mph is the rated mph for a 4wd is 21/28. 22 mph on a brand new engine in the colder months is about right. Put your foot into a turbo and more air forced in means more gas going with it.

[akirby]

22 mph is pretty slow.

[blockisle9]

Better than my average of 15.3

[boudhaquebec]

When I first got my Escape, I was getting a bit frustrated with my average. But by reading a lot of forums and really thinking about it , I cant really complain. Now with 4000 kms on it, my average is still around 16.5 lts/100kms which translates to about 15 mi/gal. That's 90% city and 10% hwy. It is a lot, but I work 8 kms ( not even 5 miles) from home. I have 1 light and....25 stop signs... Lots of stop and go. I'm almost always on 4 wheels. Accelerating and breaking.Those are the worst conditions.. Cant expect good milleage...I did a few runs on the highway after a reset and I got down to 8lts/100kms (29mi/gal), so it does what it's supposed to do... Imagine how much my Ranger 4.0L cost me with the same conditions.... But whatever the amount of gas burning, I really love my Escape so far... Superb vehicule....

Pierre

[rscalzo]

I have 1 light and....25 stop signs

 

You can't blame the car. Constant acceleration is going to wind up the turbo causing the fuel to dump in.

[PajamaGuy]

I think the direct injection is independent of the turbo.

[Zoomzoom5]

Turbocharging does take time to master. The direct injection helps, but the turbo does cause the smailler engine to work harder...which doesn't necessarily translate into more efficient. It can be more efficient, but snail acceleration, at least here in the good ole USA, is not an option. Gentle acceleration can work well, only if the land is level or pitching downhill. Any incline at all, and you've got to give her more gas, hence more turbo push. Ecoboost is a good thing, and I think we will continue to see improvements as Ford continues to research and develop it. I wouldn't be surprised to see electric vaned turbos put in that will completely eliminate turbo lag. They could be tuned to truly maximize efficiency by coming on only truly when needed...hence a nice "Economy" button on the dash and "Sport" should we so desire. We are starting to see those buttons more and more. Keep giving Ford feedback and request the latest computer updates. I'm wondering if the computers Ford has for engine management are a little lacking. Just wondering. The more powerful the computer (meaning quick, reliable, and durable) can increase the efficiency of the motor, transmission, cooling systems, etc. I'm sure we shall see continued improvement as time goes by. Ford can't compete if this stuff doesn't do as advertised. Let's give the engineers some help and give them the information they need to make marked and very visible improvements.

[gafry]

Just drove home 50 miles at 70MPH and got 28.2 MPG on my 1.6L Escape.

[svtenthusiast]

2013 Escape FWD with 2.0 Ecoboost, I have seen as high as 33 MPG on the highway (hand calculated) on a 300 mile trip with the cruise set on 60 (no wind).

 

On my daily drive of 40 miles each way, with mostly highway, about 8 stoplights along the route, I consistantly get 28-30mpg. Cruise set between 58-62

 

My lifetime average over about 10K miles is 28.3mpg. Here is my fuelly account: http://www.fuelly.co...csvt2060/escape

 

My vehicle is rated 30hwy/22city/25combined

[rscalzo]

I think the direct injection is independent of the turbo.

 

Breaking into the most simplest of terms, pumping more air into the engine means more fuel to maintain the air/fuel ratio. Years back two of my turbos had vacuum gauges as standard equipment and stomping on the gas shows how the mileage would drop.

[howie411]

So I just saw this interesting article that said Ford #'s for the Fusion Hybrid and C-max are way off - http://consumerist.com/2012/12/06/tests-show-ford-fusion-c-max-hybrid-are-not-getting-close-to-47-mpg/ so I went to fuel enconomy.gov to see what folks were saying about the 2.0 AWD model Escape - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2013&year2=2013&make=Ford&model=Escape%20AWD&srchtyp=ymm

 

Based on this no one is even getting close to the average.

[transitman]

"No one is getting close to the average", what do you base this on?

I regularly get above the EPA estimates. Currently I'm getting 24.7 mpg, (close to the 25 average) combined 50/50 city/highway with colder temps and winter blend fuel. My fuelly stats are 28.3 overall.

[rscalzo]

Based on this no one is even getting close to the average.

 

 

1.6 EPA Combined 25MPH

 

Owner's Results 27 MPH. Pretty close to me. The 2.0 is way below the EPA but they don't list the data sample numbers. These numbers are pretty much useless and could be based on only a few vehicles and unscientific measuring.