Ford Escape Remains On Track For Discontinuation By 2026: Report

[DeluxeStang]

45 minutes ago, akirby said:

Definitely replace it after 3 years.  Make sure you reset the BMS - Google and you’ll find the procedure to do it yourself.

I'm going to. The truck is still under warranty, so the question is do I just eat the cost of buying a better aftermarket battery, and put it in myself, or so I take it in, have the battery replaced under warranty for free, but it's just the same crappy factory battery going into it.

 

There was apparently a recall for the Ecoboost mavericks where Ford replaced the original batteries with higher quality AGM batteries, but apparently this doesn't apply to hybrids for whatever reason, which is super annoying because both powertrains are having this issue. There are rumors Ford's gonna extend this recall to the hybrids, and some people told me their escape hybrids had AGM batteries swapped in at the dealer when the originals failed. But I can't verify this. 

 

My dealership is being kinda difficult as well, my truck has a lot of the symptoms of the battery going out, battery saver mode on phone, interior lights and gauges not coming on unless you put the key in, etc, but my dealership keeps claiming they're checking it and it's fine. Don't want to be difficult or anything but it's almost like they want to do anything but change the battery. 

 

 

[AM222]

13 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

I have owned several cars built off the C2 chassis...most currently, the Maverick, and it is a delightful experience.

C2 is a good architecture. Ford could actually build a new gen Escape if they wanted to. Something less blob-like, maybe even roomier since they no longer have the mid-size Edge in North America or anywhere outside China.

Toyota is launching a new gen Rav4 which is supposedly built on an updated TNGA platform.  

It will stick to its boxy design language, something as it turns out is what compact crossover SUV buyers prefer.

Ford really should just make a C2-based next gen Escape that's more like a junior Explorer like in the past instead of something that looks like a bloated hatchback car.

The reality is Ford still needs its ICE-hybrids.

Like the Rav4, the Escape can be sold globally. Outside North America, it would definitely help Ford in Asia-Pacific and Europe.

Edited May 20 by AM222

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

To a point but I was referring to the cost of developing the platform initially and I’m sure they’ve sold enough C2 vehicles to pay for that several times over.  Edge, Nautilus, Corsair, Zephyr, Mondeo, Mondeo Sport, Bronco Sport, Maverick, Escape, Focus, Transit Connect.

 

Yes I agree with that - Ford's problem though is that every time they finally get a good global platform like that, instead of having everything on that platform and sticking with those products (and adding more and/or making models global), they'll cancel nearly everything on it after a single generation, or they will not take certain models global like they should (Edge, Zephyr, Evos to name specific models).  They should stick with C2 and massage it for years to come, with consistent product updates until the market warrants swapping to EVs/CE1.

 

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

What if Ford made some sort of interesting small car based on CE1? It would need unique software and suspension tuning, but who's to say it couldn't share the battery pack, electric motors, and other hardware components with higher volume CE1 models? If it was an EV, wouldn't meeting CAFE standards be a non issue or close to it? 

 

But I do agree with some of your points. The stricter emissions standards surrounding smaller cars is why we'll never see the small, affordable, but V8 powered mustang enthusiasts are asking for. 

 

I'd like to see a car form factor return....offer a larger compact model, and have a 4-door Mustang take the larger end of the market.

 

3 hours ago, AM222 said:

C2 is a good architecture. Ford could actually build a new gen Escape if they wanted to. Something less blob-like, maybe even roomier since they no longer have the mid-size Edge in North America or anywhere outside China.

Toyota is launching a new gen Rav4 supposedly built an updated TNGA platform.  

It will stick to its boxy design language, something as it turns out is what compact crossover SUV buyers prefer.

Ford really should just make a C2-based next gen Escape that's more like a junior Explorer like in the past instead of something that looks like a bloated hatchback car.

The reality is Ford still needs its ICE-hybrids.

Like the Rav4, the Escape can be sold globally. Outside North America, it would definitely help Ford in Asia-Pacific and Europe.

 

Agreed, they should give it a mini Explorer look, and it can be more sleek than the more upright/boxy Bronco Sport.

Edited May 20 by rmc523

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Yes I agree with that - Ford's problem though is that every time they finally get a good global platform like that, instead of having everything on that platform and sticking with those products (and adding more and/or making models global), they'll cancel nearly everything on it after a single generation, or they will not take certain models global like they should (Edge, Zephyr, Evos to name specific models).  They should stick with C2 and massage it for years to come, with consistent product updates until the market warrants swapping to EVs/CE1.

Agreed 100%.  There is no need for a C3.  In fact there is no need to do any significant changes to any existing ICE platforms other than electronics.  Focus on new tophats and new vehicles and improving quality.   Same goes for powertrains.  

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Agreed, they should give it a mini Explorer look, and it can be more sleek than the more upright/boxy Bronco Sport.

I suggested that a few months ago.  Either a C2 hybrid version or a smaller cd6 high performance version with V6 ecoboosts.  Make it closer to Edge size.

[rmc523]

20 minutes ago, akirby said:

I suggested that a few months ago.  Either a C2 hybrid version or a smaller cd6 high performance version with V6 ecoboosts.  Make it closer to Edge size.

 

If they didn't/couldn't make a CD6 Edge work, they won't do it for Escape.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

If they didn't/couldn't make a CD6 Edge work, they won't do it for Escape.

Probably not but the landscape is different now.  Edge and MKX/Nautilus buyers loved the 2.7 ecoboost.  Probably 40% of sales.

[Sherminator98]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

Probably not but the landscape is different now.  Edge and MKX/Nautilus buyers loved the 2.7 ecoboost.  Probably 40% of sales.

 

CAFE says fuck your V6 😛

 

[bzcat]

9 hours ago, AM222 said:

C2 is a good architecture. Ford could actually build a new gen Escape if they wanted to. Something less blob-like, maybe even roomier since they no longer have the mid-size Edge in North America or anywhere outside China.

Toyota is launching a new gen Rav4 which is supposedly built on an updated TNGA platform.  

It will stick to its boxy design language, something as it turns out is what compact crossover SUV buyers prefer.

Ford really should just make a C2-based next gen Escape that's more like a junior Explorer like in the past instead of something that looks like a bloated hatchback car.

The reality is Ford still needs its ICE-hybrids.

Like the Rav4, the Escape can be sold globally. Outside North America, it would definitely help Ford in Asia-Pacific and Europe.

 

I would go even further than junior Explorer styling and bring back the Explorer Sport name to replace Escape. Good symmetry also to Bronco/Bronco Sport line up so buyers will understand the positioning very easily:

• Explorer (large), Explorer Sport (compact)
• Bronco (large), Bronco Sport (compact)
• Transit (large), Transit Connect (compact)

 

I mentioned before, Ford has under-invested in the Explorer name. It should be elevated to a core product/family like Bronco, Transit, Mustang, and F-Series.

 

 

 

Edited May 20 by bzcat

[Sherminator98]

46 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

I would go even further than junior Explorer styling and bring back the Explorer Sport name to replace Escape. Good symmetry also to Bronco/Bronco Sport line up so buyers will understand the positioning very easily:

• Explorer (large), Explorer Sport (compact)
• Bronco (large), Bronco Sport (compact)
• Transit (large), Transit Connect (compact)

 

I mentioned before, Ford has under-invested in the Explorer name. It should be elevated to a core product/family like Bronco, Transit, Mustang, and F-Series.

 

Only downside is using the name in Europe, since the Explorer EV is a thing. 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

If they didn't/couldn't make a CD6 Edge work, they won't do it for Escape.

I still wonder about that late cancellation, there were a couple of camouflaged mules 

spotted so whatever drove that late cancellation was compelling enough to do.

It’s easy to jump to styling being a bit off but I have to wonder if someone simply

asked whether a base 2-row Explorer could cover enough of Edge’s buyers.

 

It’s unfortunate that the CD6 was cancelled so late as it left no time to do much

with the US Edge & Nautilus…. C2 versions of those would have been significantly 

lighter along with provision for hybrid battery that wouldn’t impact compartment space.

 

 

Edited May 20 by jpd80

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 

 

It’s unfortunate that the CD6 was cancelled so late as it left no time to do much

with the US Edge & Nautilus…. C2 versions of those would have been significantly 

lighter along with provision for hybrid battery that wouldn’t impact compartment space.

 

 

Bad habit at Ford the last 30 years.  Pick the wrong product but by the time they realize it was wrong it’s too late to go back and do it the right way.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Probably not but the landscape is different now.  Edge and MKX/Nautilus buyers loved the 2.7 ecoboost.  Probably 40% of sales.

Yeah, but as hybrids become more common, and with greater electrification power, I think it’s going to be a hard sell to justify V6s in new vehicles other than the largest and heaviest.  A V6 must be much more expensive to manufacture than an inline-4 so we may see their numbers continue to decline gradually.  Not to mention V6 normally do not help with fuel economy compared to I-4.

 

i will be surprised if Ford doesn’t consolidate V6 engines or replace them in effort to reduce costs.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Yeah, but as hybrids become more common, and with greater electrification power, I think it’s going to be a hard sell to justify V6s in new vehicles other than the largest and heaviest.  A V6 must be much more expensive to manufacture than an inline-4 so we may see their numbers continue to decline gradually.  Not to mention V6 normally do not help with fuel economy compared to I-4.

 

i will be surprised if Ford doesn’t consolidate V6 engines or replace them in effort to reduce costs.

 

They won't get rid of the V6, just limit what it comes in. This is already happening with the Bronco-You can't get the 2.7L in many of the trim levels that it came in just 2-3 years ago. 

Not to mention the V6 is a replacement for the V8 in many Ford products. 

[Rick73]

By replace I didn’t mean eliminate, but rather replace with a new V6 family.  If it goes in that direction, I’d expect a new V6 based on newest Mustang 2.3L I-4 modular architecture, making it 3.4 V6.  And also 3.0L variant.  I would personally prefer it be an inline 6 but that would make it difficult to fit in FWD vehicles.  Who knows, maybe an I-6 is a possibility if FWD-based vehicles are limited to 4-cylinder engines.  It’s not like they don’t make enough power.

[ANTAUS]

That's one thing I keep hearing from the repeat Nautilus buyers...the new Nautilus lost the 2.7L V6T and they miss having that power, the Hybrid one isn't cutting it.  Doubt Ford will put any more energy into that vehicle since it's doing so well.

[akirby]

Transverse V6s are dead for sure.  2.3LEB is the largest we’ll see on C2.

 

The Nautilus hybrid is reported to be very peppy.  I really expected to see a highly tuned 2.3L as the top engine.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

By replace I didn’t mean eliminate, but rather replace with a new V6 family.  If it goes in that direction, I’d expect a new V6 based on newest Mustang 2.3L I-4 modular architecture, making it 3.4 V6.  And also 3.0L variant.  I would personally prefer it be an inline 6 but that would make it difficult to fit in FWD vehicles.  Who knows, maybe an I-6 is a possibility if FWD-based vehicles are limited to 4-cylinder engines.  It’s not like they don’t make enough power.

Why do you fantasize so much about new engines?  It’s the answer to a problem that doesn’t exist

[jpd80]

So here’s a suggestion,

a possible Maverick SUV could easily be renamed Explorer Sport

and Bob’s your uncle.

Edited May 21 by jpd80

[twintornados]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

So here’s a suggestion,

a possible Maverick SUV could easily be renamed Explorer Sport

and Bob’s your uncle.

 

or.....call it Escape.

[Sherminator98]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

So here’s a suggestion,

a possible Maverick SUV could easily be renamed Explorer Sport

and Bob’s your uncle.

 

I'm not sure if that would work-the Maverick is kind of "low rent" interior wise that gets ignored/glossed over in reviews, while people think the Escape and BS are "cheap" when they are functionally the same outside of a shitty positioning of the start button the Escape. 

 

I'm curious as to if that C2 Bronco in China will come over as a possible replacement for the Edge. 

[rmc523]

18 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

I would go even further than junior Explorer styling and bring back the Explorer Sport name to replace Escape. Good symmetry also to Bronco/Bronco Sport line up so buyers will understand the positioning very easily:

• Explorer (large), Explorer Sport (compact)
• Bronco (large), Bronco Sport (compact)
• Transit (large), Transit Connect (compact)

 

I mentioned before, Ford has under-invested in the Explorer name. It should be elevated to a core product/family like Bronco, Transit, Mustang, and F-Series.

 

I'm still hesitant to narrow the lineup to 2-3 names + suffix (x4 products), but seems that's how they want to do things.....I worry about nameplate dilution.

 

I guess if they're not going to directly replace Edge with an Escape below it, and let BS grow to Escape size, it can work, but I don't want to see 15 "Explorer + ____" models.

 

They could make it:

(sub-compact/compact) Bronco Sport (grows to Escape Size and/or keeps the same size, adding a "Max" LWB model to reach Escape size)

(large compact/midsize) Explorer Sport (closer to Edge size)

(midsize) Bronco

(large midsize) Explorer

(large / XL) Expedition (+ Max)

 

 

17 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Only downside is using the name in Europe, since the Explorer EV is a thing. 

 

That was such a stupid name choice.....they've done all this work to clean up their names and make the names global (same product) and/or not use the same names on unrelated products in different markets only to revert back to it.

Just using a suffix would've been fine (i.e. Explorer _____ EV) 

 

17 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I still wonder about that late cancellation, there were a couple of camouflaged mules 

spotted so whatever drove that late cancellation was compelling enough to do.

It’s easy to jump to styling being a bit off but I have to wonder if someone simply

asked whether a base 2-row Explorer could cover enough of Edge’s buyers.

 

It’s unfortunate that the CD6 was cancelled so late as it left no time to do much

with the US Edge & Nautilus…. C2 versions of those would have been significantly 

lighter along with provision for hybrid battery that wouldn’t impact compartment space.

 

 

 

I'd push back in the same manner of when Mach E is touted as an Edge replacement - the form factor is different.....Edge buyers like the additional space over Escape, but don't want something as big as Explorer.

We've seen Nautilus doing great, it's sad they couldn't have made a new Edge work.

 

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

They won't get rid of the V6, just limit what it comes in. This is already happening with the Bronco-You can't get the 2.7L in many of the trim levels that it came in just 2-3 years ago. 

Not to mention the V6 is a replacement for the V8 in many Ford products. 

 

I think that's Ford trying to simplify build combos....I think they went too a la carte with their Bronco "menu" of options that complicated production.

 

11 hours ago, Rick73 said:

By replace I didn’t mean eliminate, but rather replace with a new V6 family.  If it goes in that direction, I’d expect a new V6 based on newest Mustang 2.3L I-4 modular architecture, making it 3.4 V6.  And also 3.0L variant.  I would personally prefer it be an inline 6 but that would make it difficult to fit in FWD vehicles.  Who knows, maybe an I-6 is a possibility if FWD-based vehicles are limited to 4-cylinder engines.  It’s not like they don’t make enough power.

 

How is a V6 based on an I4 design?

 

I think the days of V6s in FWD products are gone (at Ford anyway).

 

The I6 was a rumor a while back, but it was canned.....I think we'll just see modifications to what they have for the forseeable future.

 

10 hours ago, ANTAUS said:

That's one thing I keep hearing from the repeat Nautilus buyers...the new Nautilus lost the 2.7L V6T and they miss having that power, the Hybrid one isn't cutting it.  Doubt Ford will put any more energy into that vehicle since it's doing so well.

 

Hmmm, I thought I've read that it performs pretty well?

 

31 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I'm not sure if that would work-the Maverick is kind of "low rent" interior wise that gets ignored/glossed over in reviews, while people think the Escape and BS are "cheap" when they are functionally the same outside of a shitty positioning of the start button the Escape. 

 

I'm curious as to if that C2 Bronco in China will come over as a possible replacement for the Edge. 

 

Yeah, that product is interesting, though I think it'll be too close to THE Bronco for our market......and at that point, they could've just imported Everest.

Edited May 21 by rmc523

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Why do you fantasize so much about new engines?  It’s the answer to a problem that doesn’t exist

Should I fantasize about cup holders instead? 😀

 

You say there isn’t a problem, and that may be correct, but I’m talking about opportunities for continuous improvements, otherwise you get left behind.  As an example, Ford recently invested money, time, and other resources to develop the new Mustang 2.3L Modular Power Cylinder (MPC) EcoBoost to replace the previous 2.3L EB.  And then reportedly expanded its application to Ranger, Bronco, and Explorer.  Was there a previous problem or did Ford just make improvements?  I don’t care about semantics; only that things get better.

 

Regarding V6, IMO Ford is facing a similar situation as with 2.3L.  Both existing V6 engine families are “old school” compared to “MPC” cylinder geometry which incorporates a smaller bore and longer stroke to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions.  Now that transition to BEVs is anticipated to proceed at slower rate, maybe Ford will invest in new 6-cylinder engine family in a similar way as 2.3L.  We know a few years ago they were working on an inline-six when project was cancelled due to BEV transition.  Perhaps a new six will resurrect.  Or not.

 

In any case, the two V6 engine families are close enough in displacement IMO that Ford may be able to consolidate, or replace both with a single engine that is lower-cost to manufacture.

[akirby]

40 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Should I fantasize about cup holders instead? 😀

 

You say there isn’t a problem, and that may be correct, but I’m talking about opportunities for continuous improvements, otherwise you get left behind.  As an example, Ford recently invested money, time, and other resources to develop the new Mustang 2.3L Modular Power Cylinder (MPC) EcoBoost to replace the previous 2.3L EB.  And then reportedly expanded its application to Ranger, Bronco, and Explorer.  Was there a previous problem or did Ford just make improvements?  I don’t care about semantics; only that things get better.

 

Regarding V6, IMO Ford is facing a similar situation as with 2.3L.  Both existing V6 engine families are “old school” compared to “MPC” cylinder geometry which incorporates a smaller bore and longer stroke to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions.  Now that transition to BEVs is anticipated to proceed at slower rate, maybe Ford will invest in new 6-cylinder engine family in a similar way as 2.3L.  We know a few years ago they were working on an inline-six when project was cancelled due to BEV transition.  Perhaps a new six will resurrect.  Or not.

 

In any case, the two V6 engine families are close enough in displacement IMO that Ford may be able to consolidate, or replace both with a single engine that is lower-cost to manufacture.

Tweaking existing designs are all that is needed.  If there was a need for a new engine somewhere then something totally new like an I6 would be possible, but if the existing v6 and V8 engines are solid (and they are) then there is no reason to develop an entirely new engine.  Just like there is no reason to develop a new ICE platform.

 

Tweak the existing stuff like they did with MPC.

[Sherminator98]

59 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Yeah, that product is interesting, though I think it'll be too close to THE Bronco for our market......and at that point, they could've just imported Everest.

 

Well it would appeal to people who want the Bronco image, but not have to deal with a removable top and have a more car more like ride like the Bronco Sport.

 

It would also not be "boring"