2013+ Ford Escape Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just passed 1k mark and I am impressed with mpg I am getting out of this peppy 2.0L turbo. With not much effort I can easily get 32 mpg with mixed city/hwy driving or basically at speeds above 40 mph even in my hilly area. For comparison sake I was getting same 32 mpg from 2019 Rav4 hybrid. Of course in city only driving with lots of fun quick starts and under 35 miles I can get about 20 mpg where Rav4 hybrid was at 26 mpg in similar routes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
It really is great. I took a 510 mile round trip and tried to get as good gas mileage as I could, averaged 36.7 actual mpg and had 50 miles range left when I filled up. (that is right, 560 miles out of a tank) That was cruising the whole way, not in a rush, all hwy. In town it gets around 25, unless I'm putting my foot in it of course.

I really think the 1.5 is short on power and problematic, the hybrid isn't worth buying and the Phev is only for short range commuters who can utilize electric most of the time to really save from going to the pump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Agree! Although with other power train options you mentioned you will certainly do better in city only mpg but all of them lack in power hence not interesting. We need EV that's as affordable and as fun as 2L turbo!

It might be a while when I will be taking longer trip to test what I can get out of full tank but certainly I could see getting your close to your mpg if I would be cruising on eco.
 

·
Registered
2020 Ford Escape Titanium
Joined
·
19 Posts
It really is great. I took a 510 mile round trip and tried to get as good gas mileage as I could, averaged 36.7 actual mpg and had 50 miles range left when I filled up. (that is right, 560 miles out of a tank) That was cruising the whole way, not in a rush, all hwy. In town it gets around 25, unless I'm putting my foot in it of course.

I really think the 1.5 is short on power and problematic, the hybrid isn't worth buying and the Phev is only for short range commuters who can utilize electric most of the time to really save from going to the pump.
Where I’m from, (Ohio) add to this list of reasons not to get a hybrid, State add about $200.00 to your annual plate registration to make up for the loss of gas tax money!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Have you floored an EV? Neither have I. Torque comes up too fast.
You bet I have tried Tesla Model X luducrous mode. It's certainly really fun to try but no way I would want to do that often. Need to try what base Model Y offers but then again I am good with what 2L Escape offers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
What do you get at 75+ MPH? I got 30 mpg in a 2016 doing solid 74MPH but as soon as I maxed out it dropped to 28
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
It would likely be next summer when I will be driving at these speeds :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
My 2.0L Turbo has 25K miles and a lifetime MPG of 33.4. My commute is 90 miles a day round trip, all flat. I commute in economy, but on weekends and vacations I splurge on occasional sport mode. We do go up to Tahoe in it about twice a month as well. I've recorded 125 MPH at 5K rpm. That was fun. I had a 79 Camaro in high-school with a 350 that couldn't put up these numbers. Power to weight ratio is incredible. The most versatile car I have ever owned. Even better than my pervious car an 08 Civic. But The Civic did average 37 mpg. Add the towing of 3k pounds makes this the swiss army knife of cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
With not much effort I can easily get 32 mpg with mixed city/hwy driving or basically at speeds above 40 mph even in my hilly area.
What driving mode do you use? I don't have long-term results for mine because I basically just got it, but I did a 1-day test for a normal working day and averaged 27mpg in normal mode with about 40 miles on the freeway and 8 in town, mostly flat land. I tried eco mode when I was driving it home from the dealer and it honestly felt really clunky to the point where accelerating actually became frustrating (it felt like it was slower than a semi truck and it would never stop shifting) so I went back to normal. But if I can get 32 mpg in eco mode I might stick to it 😁

Still, even 27 mpg isn't bad. My F-150 I had before this got about 14 mpg, my Fiesta ST before that got about 26, and the escape has more power and is bigger so I'm not disappointed I just would like to squeeze as much as possible while still maintaining a nice driving experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
What driving mode do you use? I don't have long-term results for mine because I basically just got it, but I did a 1-day test for a normal working day and averaged 27mpg in normal mode with about 40 miles on the freeway and 8 in town, mostly flat land. I tried eco mode when I was driving it home from the dealer and it honestly felt really clunky to the point where accelerating actually became frustrating (it felt like it was slower than a semi truck and it would never stop shifting) so I went back to normal. But if I can get 32 mpg in eco mode I might stick to it 😁

Still, even 27 mpg isn't bad. My F-150 I had before this got about 14 mpg, my Fiesta ST before that got about 26, and the escape has more power and is bigger so I'm not disappointed I just would like to squeeze as much as possible while still maintaining a nice driving experience.
I was in normal mode but generally I stay in sport mode and enjoy the car fully when I can so my mpgs most of the time not the greatest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Only had my 2.0 S E L for a few weeks now . First trip to nearest small city was 120 km away . I was on eco mode with cruise set at 100 kmph (like 60 mph) speed . Round trip read 7.2 L/100km . Works out to 39 MPG in metric measure .I was quite impressed because it also included the short time I was driving in the city . Eco mode seems to make little difference on mine driving in the mountains . Tons of power either way .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I crossed 2k km mark yesterday.
Gas consumption is about 23 mpg (10 l/100km) with many short winter drives.
When I hit the highway it goes up (or drops, I should say?) to 33 mpg (7 l/100 km).
I do like my Ford go kart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I crossed 2k km mark yesterday.
Gas consumption is about 23 mpg (10 l/100km) with many short winter drives.
When I hit the highway it goes up (or drops, I should say?) to 33 mpg (7 l/100 km).
I do like my Ford go kart.
You are getting about the same mileage as I am . My most recent round trip of 225 km yielded 7.2 L/100km which in imperial measure is 39.23 miles per gallon . Imperial measure was in place for over half of my life until they changed it to metric April 1st 1975 in order to make everything smaller and charge more for it. I detest metric and I still use imperial measurement for 90 % of my means of measuring anything . I will never ever part with my Imperial tape measures and yardsticks etc. .Imperial MPG is all that matters to me here in Canada to know what kind of fuel economy I know and understand and am actually getting . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,363 Posts
You are getting about the same mileage as I am . My most recent round trip of 225 km yielded 7.2 L/100km which in imperial measure is 39.23 miles per gallon . Imperial measure was in place for over half of my life until they changed it to metric April 1st 1975 in order to make everything smaller and charge more for it. I detest metric and I still use imperial measurement for 90 % of my means of measuring anything . I will never ever part with my Imperial tape measures and yardsticks etc. .Imperial MPG is all that matters to me here in Canada to know what kind of fuel economy I know and understand and am actually getting . .
Yep...here in Australia we went metric in June, 1970 when I was in my mid 20's and I still tend to convert to imperial especially in the case of mpg.
The trouble when following this thread is that the conversion from liters/100km to mpg is different in US compared to the UK and Australia for instance and I find myself continually converting and comparing US figures here. :p .
There are approx. 3.75 liters to the US gallon compared to approx. 4.54 liters to 'our' gallon so our cars are more economical on paper than the US ones as 32mpg US for instance is equal to approx. 39mpg in Oz and UK. :LOL::LOL:.

Before one of my US friends here flames me I know they are the same economically, it just sounds 'better'. ;) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: WillMcK

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Yep...here in Australia we went metric in June, 1970 when I was in my mid 20's and I still tend to convert to imperial especially in the case of mpg.
The trouble when following this thread is that the conversion from liters/100km to mpg is different in US compared to the UK and Australia for instance and I find myself continually converting and comparing US figures here. :p .
There are approx. 3.75 liters to the US gallon compared to approx. 4.54 liters to 'our' gallon so our cars are more economical on paper than the US ones as 32mpg US for instance is equal to approx. 39mpg in Oz and UK. :LOL::LOL:.

Before one of my US friends here flames me I know they are the same economically, it just sounds 'better'. ;) .
I hope nobody flames you . . . lol . . . Maybe they will flame me too . No problem . I can handle it . :LOL: It is a complicated mess for ones that have lived most of their life on one form or another of measurements. Metric was the worst thing that ever happened in Canada . Immediately all cans of stuff and all packaged goods became smaller after doing conversion and the prices went higher and they thought we would be too stupid to even notice it it. Government and political beurocracy at its best.
Too bad there is not the same type of measurements worldwide. I was never real good at learning new "languages" and in the case of the metric language I will to stick with my good old English Imperial language except for the odd occasion where I really need to waste time doing conversions .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Miles per gallon just seems more straightforward than liters per 100km. You'd think they would have just done kilometers per liter or something, that way it's still "How far can I go with x amount of gas" instead of "how much gas do I need to buy to go 100km". Or maybe whoever decided to switch it tried that and it didn't work, I dunno.

Well, after about 850 miles and running Shell 91 the whole time (except the initial fill-up from the dealer), I'm getting about 25 mpg. It's not that scientific though, because the first two weeks I had it I was doing my normal commute and getting about 27 mpg. And then I had to take a week off of work so that was all city driving, so it has since dropped to 25 mpg. So i'm gonna say 27 mpg is my real-world results.

I might be switching to Costco though. Still gonna run 91, but Shell and Chevron just shot up like 30 cents a gallon here over the last week and Costco only went up about 10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,930 Posts
Y. My most recent round trip of 225 km yielded 7.2 L/100km which in imperial measure is 39.23 miles per gallon .
US or UK gallons?

I'm disappointed we havent gone full metric. i still describe short distances and small weights in feet and pounds. and it'll be very hard to get rid of imperial nut bolts, lumber and plumbing.
Although living in Australia for a bit made me change my habits to meter and kg. and being in a scientific field, i think a lot in mm, g, L.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top