2013+ Ford Escape Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone here have/use a flex fuel Escape? My daughter is looking at some Ford Escape 2019 models, and we want to stay away from Ford's 1.5L and 2.0L Eco-boost engines (due to a major TSB out there on coolant leaking into the cylinders - and the solution is replace the block). Anyway, my daughter wants the larger information screen with Ford Sync, instead of the little 4.2 inch screen. That is hard to find with the 2.5L I-4 motor. In all our looking so far, all we can find with the 2.5L motor (NOT eco-boost) and that have the large screen, are FLEX-fuel. Don't have any experience with those. Does anyone here know? We would want to run the car on straight unleaded gas but I don't know if that will cause problems. Please, everyone chime in! Thanks
 

·
Super Moderator
2014 Ford Escape Titanium, 2.0L, Sync 2 MFT
Joined
·
6,211 Posts
Anyone here have/use a flex fuel Escape? My daughter is looking at some Ford Escape 2019 models, and we want to stay away from Ford's 1.5L and 2.0L Eco-boost engines (due to a major TSB out there on coolant leaking into the cylinders - and the solution is replace the block). Anyway, my daughter wants the larger information screen with Ford Sync, instead of the little 4.2 inch screen. That is hard to find with the 2.5L I-4 motor. In all our looking so far, all we can find with the 2.5L motor (NOT eco-boost) and that have the large screen, are FLEX-fuel. Don't have any experience with those. Does anyone here know? We would want to run the car on straight unleaded gas but I don't know if that will cause problems. Please, everyone chime in! Thanks
It just means the engine will run on regular unleaded fuel or an unleaded/ethanol mixture.

Anyway, the coolant loss issues is primarily with the 1.5L engine. The 2.0L doesn’t experience this issue as often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
flex fuel vehicles were to game the EPA system. "Some critics have argued that American automakers have been producing E85 flex models motivated by a loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, that allows for a fuel economy credit for every flex-fuel vehicle sold, whether or not in practice these vehicles are fueled with E85.[33][44] This loophole might allow the car industry to meet the CAFE targets in fuel economy just by spending between US$100 to US$200 that it cost to turn a conventional vehicle into a flex-fuel, without investing in new technology to improve fuel economy, and saving them the potential fines for not achieving that standard in a given model year.[44][45][46] In an example presented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for establishing the CAFE standards, the special treatment provided for alternative fuel vehicles, "turns a dual fuel vehicle that averages 25 mpg on gasoline or diesel... to attain the 40 mpg value for CAFE purposes."[47] The current CAFE standards are 27.5 mpg for automobiles and 22.2 mpg for light-duty trucks."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
In 2019 models it wouldn’t be possible to get this combination. The 2.5 non ecoboost is only available in the S trim level, the ecoboost started being standard on SE in 2017. The S makes the larger display and auto temp control that comes with it unavailable. You could maybe get a 2016 with Sync 3 in an SE with the 2.5 but that’s a unicorn trim where someone had wanted a fully loaded SE with base engine. If you’re concerned get a 2.0 with a CPO warranty, any block issues will manifest themselves within warranty. FWIW I don’t recall the 2.5 being flex fuel, as the previous gen escapes only the 3.0 was and the 2.5 is carryover. There would be a yellow ring around the cap less filler neck behind the gas door if it was
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks, this has been very helpful. We're looking at the 2.0 eco-boost buy have have heard a few mechanics say that Ford is still perfecting the Eco-boost engine. They say the combination of the The turbo, + the GDI, plus VVT, on a relatively new (for Ford) engines is asking for trouble. There is already the known problems of overheating, and now the TSB on the coolant getting into the cylinders causing the need for the block to be replaced. I thin you are correct that the coolant problem would manifest itself in the 2.0 under warranty, but what good is replacing the long block(engine) only to have the problem reappear later on? I cannot find any information on how the problem is permanently cured by replacing the block?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Thanks, this has been very helpful. We're looking at the 2.0 eco-boost buy have have heard a few mechanics say that Ford is still perfecting the Eco-boost engine. They say the combination of the The turbo, + the GDI, plus VVT, on a relatively new (for Ford) engines is asking for trouble. There is already the known problems of overheating, and now the TSB on the coolant getting into the cylinders causing the need for the block to be replaced. I thin you are correct that the coolant problem would manifest itself in the 2.0 under warranty, but what good is replacing the long block(engine) only to have the problem reappear later on? I cannot find any information on how the problem is permanently cured by replacing the block?
I believe the issue was block porosity in earlier build engines (they switched suppliers when it went to the dual scroll and from Valencia to Cleveland) so I believe it’s primarily the 2017 MY that’s affected. With any GDI engine it is true you want to use top tier rated gas to try to avoid intake valve coking but it’s been a hotly debated subject and it just doesn’t seem to be an issue people have made it out to be, nowhere near the issues of BMW/VW group GDI turbos. Some have said it has to do with Fords PCV placement lower on the engine to limit the ability for oil to be taken in in large quantities. I think ecoboost got a bad rap because early engines like the first gen 3.5 and 1.6 were more problem prone. The 1.6 was the problem child with overheating and such but the 2.0 and 2.3 have been relatively trouble free. The new 3.5 cured many of the original design deficiencies. A power train warranty would also cover the 6F35 which is a somewhat problematic unit but I’d recommend a test drive of both engines and I think you’d be sold on the better one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks for the info. What are your thoughts about the aluminum head? I remember that Chevy once made the Vega (with the aluminum block) because it was lighter than cast iron (better MPG). But it had problems with warping due to heat issues. Now there are a lot of car companies who make aluminum engine parts, including the Ford aluminum head used in the 2.0, but i don't know how they would/can prevent the warping issues brought on by typical engine temperatures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Thanks for the info. What are your thoughts about the aluminum head? I remember that Chevy once made the Vega (with the aluminum block) because it was lighter than cast iron (better MPG). But it had problems with warping due to heat issues. Now there are a lot of car companies who make aluminum engine parts, including the Ford aluminum head used in the 2.0, but i don't know how they would/can prevent the warping issues brought on by typical engine temperatures?
Most modern DOHC engines have had aluminum heads for some time, so I wouldn’t worry at all. I even had an overheating issue on my old Ford 3.0 duratec with aluminum head and it came out fine (hose broke, coolant gone, no dash light drove about 5 miles). Most are aluminum blocks too, they have ironed out any issues over the years. The Vega could be a case study in how not to make a good car, I think their issue was not using cast iron sleeves like modern cars do, along with maybe some other issues related to design quality. I’m actually struggling to think of any engines that are iron block, the last that comes to mind was the VW 2.0 dating back to the mid 90s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
well you've made me feel better about the 2.0 interior engine issues. What about the turbo charger? I am told they are pretty pricey to replace. Also, on the internet there are lots of issues noted with the stainless steel exhaust manifold (with the integrated cat converter) cracking? I'm sure that's also a few bot payments to replace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
If you do have to replace it it wouldn’t be cheap, but they did their homework making them robust for the “normal car” applications they put them in. I’d say that could be an outlier repair, maybe after something like 15 years when age and corrosion get hold. The good part about engines like ecoboost is that all the elements were designed to be turbocharged so they work in harmony and not over stress each other. I’d say those types of things are no different from a touchscreen display: they would be very costly to replace but if cared for they don’t seem to need replacement all that often. I think key for cats and turbos is just to make sure if you have an engine code get it fixed right away so there isn’t any overheating of the exhaust or burning out components from an overly rich fuel mixture. Also keep in mind Ford sells like a quarter million plus of these a year, and if you factor in the same engines to a Fusion it’s closer to half a million so there will be some people who have issues but the vast majority will be trouble free for 150k+ miles. There are more things that “could” break on a turbo engine, but that’s not to say everything will break. The key that emerges is in timely and regular maintenance and aside from weird one off issues like the block leakage most owners won’t experience any issues different from a non turbo engine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
Thanks, this has been very helpful. We're looking at the 2.0 eco-boost buy have have heard a few mechanics say that Ford is still perfecting the Eco-boost engine. They say the combination of the The turbo, + the GDI, plus VVT, on a relatively new (for Ford) engines is asking for trouble.
EcoBoost has been out for 10 years now.
The problems u mention are grossly overstated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Thanks! You folks have been VERY helpful! I wonder if you guys know a cheap place to get an intelligent remote, and to have it programmed (other than going to the 'Stealer-ship' ). The 2019 Escape we are thinking about only has 1 remote. There is no key, the FOB just has to be in the car I guess and you can hit the start button and off you go. I am used to the Ford PATS keys with the chip in the actual key.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Thanks! You folks have been VERY helpful! I wonder if you guys know a cheap place to get an intelligent remote, and to have it programmed (other than going to the 'Stealer-ship' ). The 2019 Escape we are thinking about only has 1 remote. There is no key, the FOB just has to be in the car I guess and you can hit the start button and off you go. I am used to the Ford PATS keys with the chip in the actual key.
There are some places that sell these online but since it hasn’t been bought yet I’d negotiate a second key into the deal. I think when I looked it was somewhere around $200
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I had a Flex-Fuel vehicle. I almost never burned the Fkex-Fuel gas, because it made it feel sluggish and got terrible mileage. The 2.5 itself isn't a bad engine. But the 2.0, as mentioned, doesn't have as many issues as the snaller turbo engines do. The larger touch screen wasn't (to my knowledge) available on the lower trim models that have the 2.5, but you can always install it, if you want. It would mean a trip to the dealer if you don't consider yourself savvy with programing it for the vehicle, but it's doable. They do sell kits online to upgrade to the bigger screen. Some include the programming for your VIN in the cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zythophile79

·
Super Moderator
2014 Ford Escape Titanium, 2.0L, Sync 2 MFT
Joined
·
6,211 Posts
I moved all of the 4” to 8” upgrade posts to the following thread. This was originally done, but for some reason all of the discussions needed up here.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
The only problem I've ever had with the 2.0 ecoBoost was rapid acceleration issues . . . with my wife's right foot. She doesn't speed, but she don't take long to get it to the speed limit.
I have to admit, the fun factor seems to be a bit higher with the 2.0 ecoBoost. Seen it mentioned more than once in these forums.
The biggest issue with the GM 4 cylinder engines, the ones with iron blocks, and aluminum heads. Dissimilar metals expand and contract differently when heated. Never overheat it, fine. Overheat it bad once, warped the head. Then likely, a blown head gasket, and all of the issues that could go with it. The Iron Duke 4's were their best. Iron on iron. Basically half of a 327 Chevy. Near bulletproof for an early 90's 4 cyl. The Quad 4's were a fore-telling of the problems with the Ford 1.5 and 1.6 when you didn't get good castings.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top