24Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 57 Old 02-02-2015, 04:01 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 299
I guess I was just wanting a reason to trade in my 2014 Escape SE for a 2015 with the 2.0 engine

I'm getting a new 2015 Edge with the new 2.0 dual scroll EcoBoost engine for my wife, so I might be a tad jealous once I drive the new Edge and compare it's power to my 1.6 L

I get the employee discount, Costco members discount, plus all incentives that Ford offers at the time of order/delivery of the vehicle. This would mean that I would only end up paying for the cost to upgrade to the 2.0 which is $950 for Ford employees and family members.

2014 Ingot Silver Escape SE FWD

201A, Charcoal Black Leather Interior

K&N E-9289 air filter, Ceramic tint
Build date: June 17, 2014
CND_Escape is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 57 Old 02-02-2015, 10:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 220
It isn't so much a question...

Quote:
Originally Posted by centex View Post
IMHO it is rather silly to allude to a 40-year old design in reference to current technology (and disingenuous to grossly oversimplify the comparative problems of '74 vintage 1.6 and 2.0 as being solely a function of displacement and torque). There is simply no meaningful basis for comparing '74 era engines and current designs in a discussion about 'longevity' of the latter.

I predict that the future of internal combustion vehicles will in large part evolve toward using engines in a way that they are almost constantly 'working hard'. That is, the engines will run at peak power and efficiency almost constantly, either delivering motive power directly to the drivetrain or delivering that power to energy storage strategies, either kinetic, potential or a combination of the two.

The point is, old notions of engines 'working too hard' are rapidly losing credence and applicability, and to a very great extent are inapplicable already. Smaller engines working 'harder' are ultimately more efficient in terms of converting fuel energy into motive force. Advances on many fronts from metallurgy (and non-metal materials science) to cooling strategies to lubricant properties and even production techniques have rendered old notions about 'working hard' vs 'longevity' completely outdated.

The features of engine design and build that bear on longevity are changing very rapidly these days. Fortunately, the process of engine development has also become much more efficient by virtue of very sophisticated computer modeling, prototyping and production techniques. That means that old notions about the 'longevity' of designs necessary to realize pay-back are also becoming dated .... no one should be surprised to find manufacturers more and more willing and able to 'abandon' designs more quickly than in the past in order to take advantage of rapid advances in technology, particularly as it relates to end-product operating efficiency.

I'm not suggesting that the current 1.6 EcoBoost is a miracle engine or a be-all-end-all. Nor am I suggesting that any specific implementation or model-run is without problems. I am suggesting that it is a significantly advanced engine design in comparison to many of the other current production engines, even those offered by Ford (2.5 non-EcoBoost) and certainly more advanced than even recent earlier engines. IMHO there is no basis for drawing conclusions or making predictions about it's "longevity" based on comparison to those 'old' technologies and notions tied to those technologies .... it is different enough that it will have to prove its own record, and in so doing will likely shatter more of the entrenched ideas about 'small engines working harder'.

When I was born Ford was still producing the long-lived flathead V8 and those confounded complex OHV engines were still earning 'credibility'. IMHO we are now in an era of more rapid and radical positive advances in vehicle internal combustion gasoline engines than ever in my life. We 'olde skoolers' are going to have to let go of a lot of 'olde notions' lest we be left behind in a could of dust ('cause these newfangled engines sure aren't gonna bury us in a cloud of smoke ;-)
of displacement as it is of the amount of available torque without the use of the turbo and when it is available.

If we really wanted to go back in time we could also have the debate over whether a low rev V8 was better than a high rev 4 cylinder for day to day use, but I stand by my assertion that the Escape maxes out the current Zetec 1.6L. If this was not the case, we wouldn't be seeing the number of recalls that are basically for overheating (remember the nice 90 part one that included cutting out 2 of the active grill shutters) and that the heads if cracked are not available from Ford, the only option for the dealer is a long block.

To me this represents either a quality control problem or a case of the engineering team performing very, very badly and delivering a solution that was one of a light duty part in a medium duty application.

And having said all of this, the 3 cylinder 1.5L when and if it ever hits the Escape may not have any problems at all, something I would expect since it's derived from the same Duratec family as the current 2.5L and 2.0L (both EcoBoost and non-Ecoboost), 2.3L EcoBoost (in the MK-C) and the 3.5L EcoBoost.
jpohlman is offline  
post #13 of 57 Old 02-02-2015, 11:35 PM
Super Moderator
 
atlcarl69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,218
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by CND_Escape View Post
I guess I was just wanting a reason to trade in my 2014 Escape SE for a 2015 with the 2.0 engine

I'm getting a new 2015 Edge with the new 2.0 dual scroll EcoBoost engine for my wife, so I might be a tad jealous once I drive the new Edge and compare it's power to my 1.6 L

I get the employee discount, Costco members discount, plus all incentives that Ford offers at the time of order/delivery of the vehicle. This would mean that I would only end up paying for the cost to upgrade to the 2.0 which is $950 for Ford employees and family members.
IMHO, I would get the 2.0 for its improved resale value, the 1.6 will probably follow the wonderful late Corvairs as unreliable and avoidable, regardless of the truth. If you already have the 1.6 and are happy with it, keep it and wait for the next big change in the Escape, just don't race your wife!

ATL GA USA
2013 Titanium<SEL Tuxedo Black 2.0 Built 07.19.2012
OEM Xenons, 302A package, PanoRoof, Sony MFT Nav
Parking Tech Package, PVD Chrome Rims, Ford Tow Pkg
Help us help you - what is your year, engine, drivetrain, trim and SYNC version?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
atlcarl69 is online now  
post #14 of 57 Old 02-02-2015, 11:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Visalia, Ca.
Posts: 1,224
From everything I've read the 1.5L is a four cylinder and the 1.0L is a three cylinder.
Mark

2014 Sunset Titanium FWD 2.0L FE
Panno sunroof, Tow Package
Build Date 2/3/14 Day after my Hawks won!
Go Hawks!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
leadmic is offline  
post #15 of 57 Old 02-03-2015, 12:28 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Arizona
Posts: 91
The 1.6 in the Escape is not even tuned to anything considered close to its full potential. I know it might seem odd to have such a small engine powering such a heavy vehicle, but when you combine all of the technologies combined (such as twin turbo, direct injection, etc), the engine is inherently quite capable and powerful.

Case in point: the 1.6 in the Fiesta is tuned to 197hp and 202 lb ft torque.
the 1.5 in the Fusion puts out 181hp and 185 lb ft torque.

Our Escape's 1.6 is tuned to 178hp and 184 lb ft torque.

These engines are capable of much more, but for mass production they are going to keep things well below ever pushing it to the extremes.

And just a thought: Since the torque comes on at such low RPMs, that hints to me that the engine is not having to strain very much while providing that spirited acceleration we feel anywhere between 0-50 mph.

2013 - 1.6 Liter - MFT - Ingot Silver
tbudjobs is offline  
post #16 of 57 Old 02-03-2015, 07:45 AM
Junior Member
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Chicago Heights, IL.
Posts: 18
My engine never strains powering my escape. It easily handles suburban driving and I have had it on expressway a few times with no trouble moving with traffic at 75 mph. I bought used and all the recall work was done, per car fax I didn't see any history of mine being in dealership for repairs and the 3 months I have owned it I think it runs fine.

2013 Escape SEL 1.6 FWD
2012 Chrysler 300S 3.6
2006 Mustang GT 5sp.
Bruno is offline  
post #17 of 57 Old 02-03-2015, 10:42 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Napanee, ON
Posts: 36
My FE 1.6 will remain in 6th gear going up hills that cause my TaurusX with 3.5 motor to down shift. That suggests to me that the 1.6 motor has enough low end torque and is not strained as much as the 3.5 motor when in 6th gear.
tellmem3 and strykerlover like this.

2014 SE 201a package. 1.6L FWD. DEEP IMPACT BLUE. Build Date 2014/05/15
grambo is offline  
post #18 of 57 Old 02-04-2015, 10:34 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadmic View Post
From everything I've read the 1.5L is a four cylinder and the 1.0L is a three cylinder.
Mark
you beat me to that fact mark! Ford EcoBoost engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

funny that the 1.0 is also the only E boost made with a cast iron block and runs strong in a focus test car I drove.
as to the 1.6 the rumor mill talks of ford having redesigned the 1.6 for the 15 with stronger castings which explains why when the found mine had a bad head the dealer parts department found the head for cars built before 07/31 /14 was discontinued and said to use a special number replacement long block
35073 is offline  
post #19 of 57 Old 02-04-2015, 01:48 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 145
correction on my part the engine cylinder head part number
the dates are to 07/24/2013 and from 07/24/2013 there has been 3 part numbers for the head and each is no longer available discontinued

the dealers parts department gets a note when clicking on a cylinder head to use part number cj5z-6006-g a special service engine and even that has been superseded from a A to a E to a G which is a 2015 1.6 L
35073 is offline  
post #20 of 57 Old 02-04-2015, 04:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 88
35,700 Miles and counting ... at this rate it will be new at 100,000 miles again!

At 28,000 miles the whole turbo charger was replaced and the vehicle was in the shop over 3 weeks, the lead mechanic had to watch a video to figure out how to replace it.

At 35,200 miles both Upper motor mounts were replaced and the complete Front End Sub-Assembly supporting motor and transmission was replaced. This time in the shop for 2 days.

I have a 6 year old Dodge 1500 pickup in the drive with NO ISSUES at all!
dfw1417 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



  Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does waiting too long to fill up damage engine? Zenman Ford Escape Fuel Economy Discussion 10 11-17-2014 09:54 AM
2013, takes too long to shift when the engine is cold Ben Young Engine and Technical Discussion 14 05-11-2014 08:57 AM
Ford Ecoboost Engine Torture pilotattitude Off Topic Discussion 5 03-06-2014 07:23 PM
Unspecific Ecoboost engine badges JMR Ford Escape General Discussion 29 10-12-2013 09:42 PM
2.0 Ecoboost engine camshaft operation wamara Engine and Technical Discussion 6 03-23-2013 01:08 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On