chevys Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1308_compact_crossover_comparison/viewall.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBirdStangSkyliner Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Well, global "C" is several years old and the Escape is stretching it to likely near its upper limits. The Escape is priced aggressively, but designed to be all things to people in many markets, while having a low production cost. Why be surprised or mad at magazine editors when it is quickly surpassed by its competitors? It isn't a bad vehicle, but it set a pretty easy bar to exceed in several important areas. I just don't see the MKC being the hit that many on this forum are predicting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) There's always an inherent danger in a review when you put the best selling SUV last, especially when you weight the pluses and minuses differently to actual buyers. Just MT taking another dump on Ford's reputation....... Edited July 8, 2013 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't remember other complaints about the interior - is it that bad? Luckily these comparison tests mean nothing to potential buyers. Otherwise the Camry would be dead last in sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyd Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1308_compact_crossover_comparison/viewall.html Motor Trend uses the smallest engine in the comparison (Escape 1.6 ) to the other three larger displacement competitors and then rants for numerous paragraphs about its lethargic performance, while the others were much much faster. Then...later they hint at the 2.0 (which they failed to use in the actual test) being a better choice! Why didn't they use the 2.0 in the test? Don't forget the subjective thoughts on the cheap dash, etc...! In reality, the Escape buyers are not listening to Motor Trend's spin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I don't remember other complaints about the interior - is it that bad? My only complaint about the Interior on the new Escape is the passenger side is a bit more cramped then the older model due to the dash design. The materials are fine and are just as nice as my 40k+ SHO. As for the rear of the Escape interior cargo hold...seriously? I'd rather have a plain looking plastic part thats going to get banged up anyways when you stick stuff back there anyways. The interior space feels nearly identical to the outgoing Escape, outside of the dash shape issue on the passenger side. The other thing that kills me is the first reviews of the Escape said the 1.6L was plenty fine for the truck, but here they go poo-pooing it a year or so later. The 2L Ecoboost has ALOT of balls for it for a small truck..it really pulls...maybe to the point its a bit too much for a FWD application because I felt wheel hop on it when my dad was driving his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Motor Trend uses the smallest engine in the comparison (Escape 1.6 ) to the other three larger displacement competitors and then rants for numerous paragraphs about its lethargic performance, while the others were much much faster. Then...later they hint at the 2.0 (which they failed to use in the actual test) being a better choice! Why didn't they use the 2.0 in the test? Don't forget the subjective thoughts on the cheap dash, etc...! In reality, the Escape buyers are not listening to Motor Trend's spin! Bobby - the 1.6L is an ecoboost and it compares almost exactly to the competitors engines power wise. It was a perfectly valid comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBirdStangSkyliner Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I see the Escape as a good microcosm of where Ford is with many of their vehicles. The exterior styling surpasses the interior styling by a fair margin. Usable space is compromised by dash (center stack and dash in some Fords). Observed fuel mileage is controversial. Ride and handling not sorted out as well as competitive offerings. Pricing a bit off when comparing feature to feature. Edited July 8, 2013 by TBirdStangSkyliner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 The real kick in the nuts is the gas mileage the 1.6 got. No better really than the 2 liter turbo and certainly off the pace of the competition. I didnt realize these little cross overs were so heavy! I think Ford has issues in engine sizing in certain segments. Sounds like to me the 1.6 is just marginal at best in the Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 The real kick in the nuts is the gas mileage the 1.6 got. No better really than the 2 liter turbo and certainly off the pace of the competition. I didnt realize these little cross overs were so heavy! I think Ford has issues in engine sizing in certain segments. Sounds like to me the 1.6 is just marginal at best in the Escape. I do wonder myself about the FE claims of the 1.6L myself..seems like every review blasts it for not coming close. I'm hoping the 1.5L fixes that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 I do wonder myself about the FE claims of the 1.6L myself..seems like every review blasts it for not coming close. I'm hoping the 1.5L fixes that problem. Is the 1.5 a gen 2 ecoboost? Honestly, I dont see it being any better. Wasnt the down sizing in response to government limits on size in other countries due to taxes? There is a whole lot to be said for plain old simple NA 2.4/2.5 that actually delivers better gas mileage with the same power. The 1.6T is a screamer in something like a Fiesta but this reminds me a bit of the 2L eco in the Explorer. It has to work too hard evidently and not really a good choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Although Ford has done a tremendous job "selling" the Ecoboost, I am not, nor was I ever, sold on turbocharging as a viable method for delivering better FE. Too many variables put the engine into boost therefore using more fuel. IMO they are similar to hybrid vehicles in that they test well on EPA cycle, but not so much in the real world. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcthorne Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I completely disagree. My wifes Explorer Sport had a lifetime average of 15mpg out of its 4.0l V6 and it was a 2WD. The Escape is 2.0L FAR better performance, better interior room etc and its AWD and it gets 23 day in day out in the city. 15 vs 23 was a big step up and the performace increase along with it. The engines have come a LONG way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I just don't see the MKC being the hit that many on this forum are predicting. Well, we can see how poorly the Escape is selling because of reviews like this, so the MKC is bound to not sell well also. Oh wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Is the 1.5 a gen 2 ecoboost? Honestly, I dont see it being any better. Wasnt the down sizing in response to government limits on size in other countries due to taxes? There is a whole lot to be said for plain old simple NA 2.4/2.5 that actually delivers better gas mileage with the same power. The 1.6T is a screamer in something like a Fiesta but this reminds me a bit of the 2L eco in the Explorer. It has to work too hard evidently and not really a good choice. As far as we know its a Gen 2 Ecoboost as in the integrated exhaust manifold with the head. Yes it was downsized with intent of coming under taxes in other countries. As for the 2L Ecoboost in the Explorer..well from what I saw it gave the same performance as the 4L V6 in the 2002-2010 Explorer...and people didn't complain about that engine in that. I guess if an SUV isn't getting sub 14 second 1/4 time, its considered too "slow" for everyday driving 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azulejost Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited July 9, 2013 by azulejost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBirdStangSkyliner Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Except for the F150, in which Ford really cares and invests a lot, their models tend not to age that well in the marketplace. Then they have a nasty habit of stranding them forever without major updates. I respect profits as much as anyone, but Ford has a long history of quickly following up good financial and sales times with troubling nosedives. It seems they get inflexible with meeting customer's needs and wants and their competition swoops in. Times are great now but I see that FoMoCo is being more than tempted to repeat their history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Except for the F150, in which Ford really cares and invests a lot, their models tend not to age that well in the marketplace. Then they have a nasty habit of stranding them forever without major updates. I respect profits as much as anyone, but Ford has a long history of quickly following up good financial and sales times with troubling nosedives. It seems they get inflexible with meeting customer's needs and wants and their competition swoops in. Times are great now but I see that FoMoCo is being more than tempted to repeat their history. No way Ford's current management goes down that path. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 they get inflexible with meeting customer's needs and wants Yes. Because this vehicle that MT dislikes so much is *also* so unpopular with customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Ford size wise is middle to low of the pack unit wise compared to GM, Toyota, VW group and Hyundai for example. The selling point of Ecoboost has always been COMPARIBLE power and Fuel economy for a smaller size powertrain. Folks have both praised and panned VW with equal fervor. I can get equal if not better FE in a EB20 in an Explorer then my past Cologne 4.0L? I get better technology, features using less (relative) fuel, raw materials and resources at a competitive price? No sale, because if the engine is bigger it's got to be better. AFAIC, MAZDA keeps going with the same lineup Ford, Volvo all shared now Ford is the bad guy for being different? Rubbish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azulejost Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Ford size wise is middle to low of the pack unit wise compared to GM, Toyota, VW group and Hyundai for example. The selling point of Ecoboost has always been COMPARIBLE power and Fuel economy for a smaller size powertrain. Folks have both praised and panned VW with equal fervor. I can get equal if not better FE in a EB20 in an Explorer then my past Cologne 4.0L? I get better technology, features using less (relative) fuel, raw materials and resources at a competitive price? No sale, because if the engine is bigger it's got to be better. AFAIC, MAZDA keeps going with the same lineup Ford, Volvo all shared now Ford is the bad guy for being different? Rubbish! 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Having common platforms and power train modules everywhere must give Ford a huge advantage in scales of economy cost savings. Neither Escape nor Fusion is entirely new, more like heavy MCEs on existing Kuga and Mondeo which also means that one of the main objectives was rationalization of platforms. While some say the 1.6 EB under performs in fuel economy, we know that Ford is already beginning roll out of the much more efficient 1.5 EB I-4 that heralds a new minimum size for engine capacity in Ford's Compact SUV and Midsized sedans, hopefully fuel consumption will also be lowered too.. Edited July 9, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardK Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) The problem with any review, especially a magazine, is they have to say something negative or nit pick at least one of the vehicles. MT cannot say everything is fine because readers would then not care. Consumer Reports is notorious for doing the same thing. Seems they, in particular, try to create sensationalism or controversy. That is how these publications can generate additional subscriptions or website activity. Edited July 9, 2013 by RichardK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Seems they, in particular, try to create sensationalism or controversy. That is how these publications can generate additional subscriptions or website activity. Thats Journalism 101 for the most part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Thats Journalism 101 for the most part Easy now.. 1 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.