typer_801
 |
|
The new 1.6L Ecoboost Ford Escape is EPA rated at 23 city/33 hwy. That's with 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/27/2013-ford-escape-1-6l-ecoboost-officially-rated-at-23-33-mpg/
Didn't Ito-san say something like Honda would have class leading fuel economy in EVERY segment by 201X with the reveal of Earth Dreams powertrain?
|
JonBoy
|
|
|
Every EcoBoost motor is having issues with hitting EPA ratings consistently. I'd expect this to be no different...
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
JonBoy wrote:
Every EcoBoost motor is having issues with hitting EPA ratings consistently. I'd expect this to be no different...
|
Where can I find that info in print?
I'm kind of disappoited in these numbers, especially when you compare it to the old 2.5. 1 less city, 2 less hwy
|
BachelorFrog
|
|
Under boost, the 23/33 rating is not possible. You need to drive like a grandmother to achieve that rating.
Look at motortrend's Exploder EB reviews, its a failure.
|
xman
|
|
|
I do not trust EPA ratings much. My '12 Odyssey gets 21 mpgs (rated 19/28), and my '07 335i manual rated 17/26 is getting 25 for the same exact drive for my commute to work.
|
MasterOfDaDomain
|
|
I'd still go with Mazda CX-5. The combined fuel economy will be better than Escape.
Time for a comparison test!
|
RSX
|
|
Yes he did. Keep in mind that all the new Honda engines with direct injection will come shortly.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Check this review of the Ford Explorer with an ecoBoost engine..
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1108_ford_explorer_ecoboost_test/
EPA 25 to 35 mpg...
Observed 19.9 and it was doggone slow.
Here's the Edge Ecoboost
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1203_2012_ford_edge_sel_ecoboost_first_test/
EPA 21/30
Observed less than 19.
I think the Ford is putting very small engines in too large vehicles and then running it through the EPA cycle which is really way too light. Then they publish the EPA numbers and 90% of the "reviews" take that for granted.
Every so often you will see a real road review, or you'll see owners report the real world mileage numbers and you see that actual efficiency is well short of the mark.
That plus the fact that driving a vehicle with a too small engine really forces the driver to push the engine.... which for a turbo really makes it a chore....
If someone should be sued on EPA numbers, it shouldn't be Honda.
|
auto_enthu
|
|
Any turbo's EPA numbers are not reliable.
Also, not sure what the Ford's intention is behind making both 2.5L NA as well as 1.6L turbo engines available when their output difference is just 5HP.
Anyway, ED should easily top these numbers and its very likely that the current CRVs real world numbers are likely going to be higher than escape's real world numbers.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
typer_801 wrote:
The new 1.6L Ecoboost Ford Escape is EPA rated at 23 city/33 hwy. That's with 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque. [...]
Didn't Ito-san say something like Honda would have class leading fuel economy in EVERY segment by 201X with the reveal of Earth Dreams powertrain?
|
4WD HP TQ EPA City/Hwy
Escape 1.6L Turbo I-4 6AT 178 184 22 31
CR-V 2.4 I-4 5AT 185 163 22 30
The 4WD CR-V is just 1mpg short in hwy test cycle. nothing ground breaking, just continuous improvement.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
typer_801 wrote:
The new 1.6L Ecoboost Ford Escape is EPA rated at 23 city/33 hwy. That's with 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque. [...]
Didn't Ito-san say something like Honda would have class leading fuel economy in EVERY segment by 201X with the reveal of Earth Dreams powertrain?
|
4WD HP TQ EPA City/Hwy
Escape 1.6L Turbo I-4 6AT 178 184 22 31
CR-V 2.4 I-4 5AT 185 163 22 30
The 4WD CR-V is just 1mpg short in hwy test cycle. nothing ground breaking, just continuous improvement.
|
That 1 mpg disadvantage will pretty much be gone when the ED + CVT combo arrives.
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
MasterOfDaDomain wrote:
I'd still go with Mazda CX-5. The combined fuel economy will be better than Escape.
Time for a comparison test!
|
I sat in a 2013 Escape, the rear seats are terrible......the dash is blah.........it feels small........
|
Midi_Amp
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
JonBoy wrote:
Every EcoBoost motor is having issues with hitting EPA ratings consistently. I'd expect this to be no different...
|
Where can I find that info in print?
I'm kind of disappoited in these numbers, especially when you compare it to the old 2.5. 1 less city, 2 less hwy
|
Isn't this the exact same thing that happened with the old RDX? The turbo is constantly boosting the engine to move the chassis mass and took quite a hit on the mileage. Anything turbo and economical should be relegated to diesel or small cars. I'm all in with the turbo craze, but only for small cars, maybe something like those Keii cars.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Midi_Amp wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
JonBoy wrote:
Every EcoBoost motor is having issues with hitting EPA ratings consistently. I'd expect this to be no different...
|
Where can I find that info in print?
I'm kind of disappoited in these numbers, especially when you compare it to the old 2.5. 1 less city, 2 less hwy
|
Isn't this the exact same thing that happened with the old RDX? The turbo is constantly boosting the engine to move the chassis mass and took quite a hit on the mileage. Anything turbo and economical should be relegated to diesel or small cars. I'm all in with the turbo craze, but only for small cars, maybe something like those Keii cars.
|
The RDX had low EPA ratings that match its real world mileage..so..I'd say that's more acceptable. I don't like cars that promise so much but underdeliver.
|
TonyEX
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
typer_801 wrote:
The new 1.6L Ecoboost Ford Escape is EPA rated at 23 city/33 hwy. That's with 178 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque. [...]
Didn't Ito-san say something like Honda would have class leading fuel economy in EVERY segment by 201X with the reveal of Earth Dreams powertrain?
|
4WD HP TQ EPA City/Hwy
Escape 1.6L Turbo I-4 6AT 178 184 22 31
CR-V 2.4 I-4 5AT 185 163 22 30
The 4WD CR-V is just 1mpg short in hwy test cycle. nothing ground breaking, just continuous improvement.
|
Jeez.. didn't you read my post?
MT measured under 19 mpg during their test.
You're posting EPA numbers which is ridiculous. Anytime you take a small turbo engine, the EPA numbers are unlikely to ever be met when you take the car on the street.
|
civicw
|
|
The way I look at Ecoboost, it's a great marketing gimmick to extract $$$ from buyers, and make them feel better about buying gas hogs like the Explorer and F-150.
Eventually, the word is going to get around that the extra $$$ for Ecoboost isn't worth it. Long term reliability is also unknown.
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
