2013 ford escape ecoboost driver#
The electric power steering was about average not as good in feel as the stellar system in the Mazda CX-5 (still our favorite crossover for driver experience and roadholding), but better than almost anything that Toyota makes. It handles nicely and we found it relatively pleasant to toss around curvy country roads, although it sits high, meaning you have to get comfortable with the sensation of more body roll than you would in a sedan.
We were disappointed with how little storage space was available on the console for our sunglasses, change, toll tickets, mobile phones, and the like. The Escape also has knobs for the climate control system, so raising and lowering the temperature is similarly easy and intuitive. We give Ford credit for retaining a round volume adjustment knob for the radio rather than pushbuttons. The interior mixes soft-touch and harder plastics, but is very similar to that of the C-Max we'd already driven (which is built on similar underpinnings), so it was familiar and worked well. That, we suspect, is very much a First World Problem. The seat heaters, on the other hand, were so aggressive that we couldn't endure more than about 10 minutes even on the lowest setting. The cloth-and-leather seats in our Platinum model were both attractive and comfortable over our longest day. The most startling thing about our 2013 Escape was that it needed to have its gas tank refilled in less than 300 milesĢ013 Ford Escape EcoBoost 2.0-liter, Pennsylvania, April 2013įrequent fillups aside, the 2013 Ford Escape proved to be a comfortable and up-to-date vehicle in which to cover lots of miles.
(Unlike the 47-mpg combined ratings in Ford's newest C-Max and Fusion hybrids. 9 miles per gallon, though during most of our fairly hilly trip, the reading was not that good.īut three solid hours of Interstate cruising on flat roads with a net downslope back to our sea-level destination boosted the recorded mileage enough to where we'd deem the EPA's rating of 24 mpg combined a reasonable expectation. Over the course of an 838-mile trip that took us through five states, we pretty much nailed the EPA combined rating. Of course, those numbers are nothing like the 32 mpg combined rating of the late, lamented Escape Hybrid (the front-wheel drive model), which went out of production after the 2012 model year. Or if you want the bigger 240-hp, 2.0-liter engine but can forgo the AWD, you'll also find a 25-mpg rating. The most fuel-efficient Escape is the front-wheel drive model with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine, rated at 26 mpg combined.Īdd all-wheel drive to the 1.6-liter model, and the combined number drops 1 mpg to 25 mpg.
Rather to our surprise, our 2013 Escape was EPA-rated at just 24 mpg combined (21 mpg city, 28 mpg highway). We hope to test lesser Escapes in the future. So right now, our gas mileage test only applies to this engine and drive configuration. This is the top-of-the-line Escape, with a sticker price of almost $35,000-against the starting price of $23,365 for the almost nonexistent 2.5-liter Escape base model.Īfter surveying a number of auto writers, it appears that in many cities (including ours), Ford only gives out the nicest, priciest Escape models for media drives. We spent six days with a pale green ("Ginger Ale Metallic") 2013 Ford Escape Titanium 4WD with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine.
0 kommentar(er)
