Bye Bye Taurus, Hello Escape

[akirby]

The Explorer had a trans issue, but review the trans behind the V6 model Explorer for that year/era and you'll find this was a notorious problem, not unique to my father in law.

 

Magnum got bad fuel mileage because it was an old archaic and underpowered V6 motor that had to struggle to pull the weight of the vehicle. The mpgs he got for that car weren't uncommon for V6 Magnum owners as it was naturally a fuel pig.

 

The 2010 Taurus never had trans issues, so not sure where you got this. It had quite a few fit/finish and quality issues. The kicker was that the vehicle needed a motor replacement at 80K miles and the Ford dealer techs couldn't identify why. Had it been due to abuse, I'm sure those signs would more than likely be fairly obvious.

 

The Escape is a loaner and brings back less than stellar mpgs. While this may not be right and something could be wrong with the vehicle, it's also not uncommon as I've read this here and other forums and he's heard from fellow co-workers that while the 15mpgs are low, they too still don't come close to the EPA ratings in their Escapes.

 

Maintenance on all vehicles above was either a Ford or Dodge dealer. IR will only let the manufacturer work on the vehicles.

 

Good attempt at trying to make the driver the problem, but can faithfully say he nor the maintenance are the issue. Heck, he has a personal '99 Dakota 5.2L 4x4 that other than basic maintenance, he has had to drop little to no money into the vehicle for repairs. Except when his oldest daughter (my wife's sister) hit a pole and put a nice sized dent in the passenger side of the bed.

 

I thought your original post, which you edited after I started typing my reply, said the Taurus needed a new trans at 80k. Now it says that it needed a new motor. Either way it was a major failure at 80k.

 

I'm not saying it definitely had anything to do with the driver or maintenance - just that it's a little suspicious when you have a vehicle that seems to be performing differently than most others (regarding low mpg on the Escape) and you have other vehicles in the same fleet suffering similar problems.

 

You can't dismiss the possibility of a maintenance or driver issue. OTOH I wouldn't say that it's likely to be that either, just a possibility.

[V8-X]

I thought your original post, which you edited after I started typing my reply, said the Taurus needed a new trans at 80k. Now it says that it needed a new motor. Either way it was a major failure at 80k.

 

I'm not saying it definitely had anything to do with the driver or maintenance - just that it's a little suspicious when you have a vehicle that seems to be performing differently than most others (regarding low mpg on the Escape) and you have other vehicles in the same fleet suffering similar problems.

 

You can't dismiss the possibility of a maintenance or driver issue. OTOH I wouldn't say that it's likely to be that either, just a possibility.

Nah, go to the original post in this thread and you'll see the issues of the Taurus in a nut shell. If I ever stated the trans was the 2010 Taurus problem, that's my bad and a typo. It's always been the engine replacement as to why the father-in-law is being moved to an Escape.

 

And I truly can't say the Escape is performing worse than others. Sure the fellas at IR aren't seeing close to EPA figures, but so aren't some others here, as well as other forums. So it doesn't appear to be unique to the IR fleet, this site or another site. But he is bringing back worse than most, so I'd want to believe there is an issue, and if there is, that's not good.

 

Lastly, I wonder how EB is impacted by high altitude. Being in Denver, could that be playing a factor into the EB's mpg performance? And I'm not talking about climbing mountain passes, just normal flat city/highway driving at 5K+ feet. I know for those I speak to with EB3.5 F150s here, they also don't get close to EPA ratings either. Just grasping at straws.

[fordmantpw]

Nah, go to the original post in this thread and you'll see the issues of the Taurus in a nut shell. If I ever stated the trans was the 2010 Taurus problem, that's my bad and a typo. It's always been the engine replacement as to why the father-in-law is being moved to an Escape.

 

And I truly can't say the Escape is performing worse than others. Sure the fellas at IR aren't seeing close to EPA figures, but so aren't some others here, as well as other forums. So it doesn't appear to be unique to the IR fleet, this site or another site. But he is bringing back worse than most, so I'd want to believe there is an issue, and if there is, that's not good.

 

Lastly, I wonder how EB is impacted by high altitude. Being in Denver, could that be playing a factor into the EB's mpg performance? And I'm not talking about climbing mountain passes, just normal flat city/highway driving at 5K+ feet. I know for those I speak to with EB3.5 F150s here, they also don't get close to EPA ratings either. Just grasping at straws.

 

I would say that altitude does play a part in it. NA engines lose power at altitude, but in order to keep the power up, turbo engines will keep the turbos spooled to keep the power up. More turbo = more fuel used.

 

Makes sense, but of course I could be way off base.

[V8-X]

I would say that altitude does play a part in it. NA engines lose power at altitude, but in order to keep the power up, turbo engines will keep the turbos spooled to keep the power up. More turbo = more fuel used.

 

Makes sense, but of course I could be way off base.

I hear ya, and this is why I asked. Now I can tell you I've never run my F150 at sea level, except a time or two on trips. But otherwise, it performs perfectly fine at 5K ft. Now when I start getting into the 9K-11K range, then a loss of power is noticeable.

 

And I wouldn't think the 2.0L would be requsting that much power and spooling the turbos that much, just for normal city/highway driving. That is unless you really put your right foot into it. Then again, that's why I asked the question.

[akirby]

I've found my 2.0L EB Fusion to be very sensitive to throttle input. Instead of a smooth curve like you'd expect with NA engines it seems to be more of a cliff. In order to achieve EPA mpg you have to coast a lot taking your foot completely off the throttle. The least bit of throttle input drops mpg and if you go over about 2K rpm it really drops off. I notice it the most going uphill. Ford's EPA drivers are very good at this whereas the average driver may not be and I think this is one explanation for the difference in mpgs. One explanation is that the PCM has to run it rich to prevent overheating.

 

I think this will get better with the next gen of EB engines as the tuning gets better and they address the cooling issue.

[RichardJensen]

Other drivers getting worse than EPA estimates in their Escapes is a far cry from getting worse MPG in the Escape than you get in an F150 or a GT500.

[Edstock]

Other drivers getting worse than EPA estimates in their Escapes is a far cry from getting worse MPG in the Escape than you get in an F150 or a GT500.

 

For that kind of fuel economy, one would expect to see black smoke from the tailpipe, when a 2.0 gets worse mpg than a GT500.

[V8-X]

Other drivers getting worse than EPA estimates in their Escapes is a far cry from getting worse MPG in the Escape than you get in an F150 or a GT500.

Not saying others in their Escapes get worse than an F150. Solely my father-in-laws loaner Escape appears to be when compared to my truck. Others I have heard of are getting worse than EPA, but not to the tune of 15mpgs.

[V8-X]

Update: Hung out with the F-i-L yesterday for the Broncos/Cowboys game (one hell of a game) and so glad they pulled it out in the end.

Anyways, he reported on his WY trip, which was all highway he averaged 23mpgs. Much better than the 15mpgs he's been averaging in mixed driving situations, but still off EPA/Ford figures. He's very dissatisfied with the Escape. He states the seats are not comfortable and that it's difficult to find a good driving position, as he constantly adjusting. His only praise of the Escape is the available power the 2.0L has if/when needed. He stated that he'd never purchase an Escape personally, nor recommend one to a friend/family, but he did state he can't gripe too much, since everything regarding this vehicle is paid for by IR and it's a much better option than using his personal vehicle for work.

I'm not sure if he truly loved the car, or if he's just that unhappy with the Escape, but he continues to heap praise onto the Taurus. He states that was one of, if not the best vehicle he ever owned (drove for an extended time). Vehicle was very comfortable yet sporty at the same time and the motor/trans combo was a pure performer in both power and mpg, until it crapped out that is. He had no problem getting 19-21mpgs city and 28mpgs or better highway no matter his driving style. Still thinks it's one of the best looking vehicles on the road too. Of course he was not happy with the various quality issues (most fixed under warranty), especially the paint issues that developed in the last year.

As stated in another thread, his girl friend recently purchased a 2013 Escape. Evidently she is fond of the style and likes the drive, but he couldn't point to the reason she purchased as she is aware how unhappy he is with his. Of course she is coming from a Malibu, so that may be reason enough to move to an Escape. Know her daughter has a 2011 Fusion and is extremely happy with it, so that could play a factor too. Now her Escape is the 1.6L (not sure of trim level as I never saw the vehicle), and the father in law stated it has brought back much better mpg than his (unsure of actual mpgs), but also is a slug in the performance dept, especially compared to the 2.0L.

Edited October 7, 2013 by V8-X

[RichardJensen]

Oh, the truth emerges.

 

Your FiL is a leadfoot

 

:D

[V8-X]

Oh, the truth emerges.

 

Your FiL is a leadfoot

 

:D

And exactly how is that? Because I said he only likes the available power from the 2.0L? Or that the 1.6L is a slug compared to the 2.0L?

 

He likes the power of the 2.0L, but states it feels no quicker than the 3.5L in the Taurus. He knew he could drive the Taurus in any fashion he wanted and it'd still bring home 19+ city and high 20's highway. As stated in a previous post within this thread, he has adjusted his driving style in the Escape, as even being light on the skinny pedal he can't get close to the mpgs he got in the Taurus regardless of driving style. The last couple times we've been together in his Escape (most recent this weekend) he has adjusted his habits considerably and the average mpg rating was poor. Even his girlfriend has told me, he drives like a grandpa now compared to when she met him about 2yrs ago. So while I admit and all of us do this, he may get on the go pedal from time to time, I don't believe it's as frequent as it may have been in the past. He's aware of how much the boost is impacting the mpgs and is consciously adjusting his driving style to improve this aspect. Problem is these driving style changes aren't making an improved impact on his fuel mileage.

[NickF1011]

My Edge has no trouble returning an average of 21 MPG with a lot more power and weight to lug around than the Escape. I don't exactly baby it either. Something was clearly wrong with the Escape.

[EBFlex]

Update: Hung out with the F-i-L yesterday for the Broncos/Cowboys game (one hell of a game) and so glad they pulled it out in the end.

 

Anyways, he reported on his WY trip, which was all highway he averaged 23mpgs. Much better than the 15mpgs he's been averaging in mixed driving situations, but still off EPA/Ford figures. He's very dissatisfied with the Escape. He states the seats are not comfortable and that it's difficult to find a good driving position, as he constantly adjusting. His only praise of the Escape is the available power the 2.0L has if/when needed. He stated that he'd never purchase an Escape personally, nor recommend one to a friend/family, but he did state he can't gripe too much, since everything regarding this vehicle is paid for by IR and it's a much better option than using his personal vehicle for work.

 

I'm not sure if he truly loved the car, or if he's just that unhappy with the Escape, but he continues to heap praise onto the Taurus. He states that was one of, if not the best vehicle he ever owned (drove for an extended time). Vehicle was very comfortable yet sporty at the same time and the motor/trans combo was a pure performer in both power and mpg, until it crapped out that is. He had no problem getting 19-21mpgs city and 28mpgs or better highway no matter his driving style. Still thinks it's one of the best looking vehicles on the road too. Of course he was not happy with the various quality issues (most fixed under warranty), especially the paint issues that developed in the last year.

 

As stated in another thread, his girl friend recently purchased a 2013 Escape. Evidently she is fond of the style and likes the drive, but he couldn't point to the reason she purchased as she is aware how unhappy he is with his. Of course she is coming from a Malibu, so that may be reason enough to move to an Escape. Know her daughter has a 2011 Fusion and is extremely happy with it, so that could play a factor too. Now her Escape is the 1.6L (not sure of trim level as I never saw the vehicle), and the father in law stated it has brought back much better mpg than his (unsure of actual mpgs), but also is a slug in the performance dept, especially compared to the 2.0L.

 

IR needs to get him a Taurus....or something other than Ford. He is having nothing but problems and very poor mileage out of his Escape (which doesn't surprise me).

[pictor]

If you go to fuelly you will see that most people average around 23 mpg with a range of 19 to 29 mpg. Not knowing the fil driving habits it is hard to say if it is him or the car. The human factor is often the better bet

[V8-X]

IR needs to get him a Taurus....or something other than Ford. He is having nothing but problems and very poor mileage out of his Escape (which doesn't surprise me).

Well, he'd love another Taurus, but IR is going away from the mid/full-size car aspect and moving practically everyone in his unit to Escapes. And being IR and Ford have a good long relationship, I'm not sure they'd move to another manufacturer simply cause of him. Heck, they've already ordered a 2014 Escape for him, which both he and I hope are better than what he's experienced with this 2013.

 

Now he's only had two problems, one being a CEL that was resolved with a dealer trip for a TSB/recall and the other is the unexpectedly low mpgs. Otherwise it's mostly gripes about the vehicle itself, like it not being comfortable and some fit/finish issues.

 

If you go to fuelly you will see that most people average around 23 mpg with a range of 19 to 29 mpg. Not knowing the fil driving habits it is hard to say if it is him or the car. The human factor is often the better bet

Is that 23mpg city, highway or a mix? He is bringing home on average 15mpgs in mixed driving her in the Denver Metro, otherwise he has only exceeded 20 mpgs once and that was the posted 23mpgs during his all highway travels to WY two weeks ago.

 

Now I will agree with you and anyone, as I'm sure he would too, that the human element plays a huge factor. Could surely see a couple mpg loss due to driving style. But 15mpg mixed driving (EPA is 25) and at best 23mpg highway (EPA is 30), that's basically a loss of 7-10 miles per gallon across the board drop. It's not like he's hot rodding it around, which could account for such a drastic decrease. Heck, I've driven my F150 hard and even then never saw a 7mpgs decrease in mpgs. Only time that has occurred is during towing situations.

[RichardJensen]

And exactly how is that?

Stop being such a grouch.

 

And, I'm going to say that he is a bit of a leadfoot if he's calling the 1.6L equipped Escape a slug. You could hardly buy a vehicle of that size with that much power in it fifteen years ago--you know, back when all the speed limits were pretty much exactly the same as what they are now.

 

Also, Fuelly is worthless for the Escape, as all 4-cylinder engines are lumped together.

[V8-X]

Stop being such a grouch.

 

And, I'm going to say that he is a bit of a leadfoot if he's calling the 1.6L equipped Escape a slug. You could hardly buy a vehicle of that size with that much power in it fifteen years ago--you know, back when all the speed limits were pretty much exactly the same as what they are now.

 

Also, Fuelly is worthless for the Escape, as all 4-cylinder engines are lumped together.

Grouch? Was your original post meant to be sarcastic? If so, that flew right over my head and apologize.

 

His comparison of the 1.6 was directly related to the 2.0, not compared to other vehicles. I'm sure he'd consider the wife's new Rogue a slug compared to the 2.0 if he drove it, as the 2.0 puts down some good power for the vehicle and motor size. So while you are correct that you would be hard pressed to find a vehicle of this size 10-15yrs ago with the power they have now, his 1.6 statement was purely in comparison to the 2.0, no other vehicle was mentioned.

[SoonerLS]

Grouch? Was your original post meant to be sarcastic? If so, that flew right over my head and apologize.

I don't think it was sarcastic, just a joke. The smiley kind of gave it away to me...