By on January 7, 2013

Like their products or not, Ford has been on a roll. It all started when the blue oval financed their metamorphosis by mortgaging everything that wasn’t nailed down a year before the bankocalypse. Next came a wave of new products like the Astonesque Fusion, Prius fighting C-MAX and the Euro-derived Fiesta and Focus. Ford’s recovery plan hinges on unifying their worldwide lineup rather than making unique vehicles for every market. Ford calls this plan “One Ford,” while I call it “Ford’s Euro love affair.” The latest warrior in the Euro invasion is none other than the Ford Kuga, you’ll know it as the new Escape. It would appear Ford’s timing couldn’t be better since they just lost the small-SUV sales crown to Honda. Can the European soft-roader take back the crown? Or has Ford gone too far by ditching the boxy Escape for world-wide homogeny?

YouTube Preview Image

Exterior

The old Escape attracted as many buyers because of its practical functionality and efficiency as it’s mini-truck appearance. Several Escape owners I know felt they could step down from an Explorer to an Escape without being emasculated by a “cute-ute.” If this describes you, consider a boxy Jeep Patriot while they last. When Michael Karesh took one for a spin last year he found the design pleasing to the eye, but in a modern crossover kind of way. The new exterior is full of crossover curves and overall looks like a jacked up Focus hatch with AWD. This description isn’t that far off base since the Escape rides on a heavily modified Focus platform. Although it looked smaller to my eye, the new Escape is nearly four inches longer, one inch wider and rides on a longer wheelbase than the last generation. Ford’s baby crossover has also been lowered from a Jeepesque 8.4-inches of ground clearance to a decidedly CUV-like 7.9-inches to improve on-road manners. In a segment dominated by fuel economy claims (and with Ford trumpeting the “lightweight” new Explorer) it is surprising that the Escape has gained 350lbs over the last generation now topping the scales at 3,840lbs as tested. Ouch. (The 2013 RAV4 looses 470lbs for 2013.)

Interior

The new Escape doesn’t just share the majority of its interior with the Euro market Kuga. Most of the dashboard is used in the new C-MAX Hybrid, and all three share heavily with Ford’s new world Focus. What does this mean to you? It means the Escape shares no styling cues from Ford’s truck line, a sharp departure from the last model. On the plus side, the parts bin Ford raided to create the Escape is full of high quality switch gear and squishy dash bits. While the earlier Escape’s cabin sold on mini-truck charm, the new Escape ties with the 2013 RAV-4 for the nicest interior in this segment.

Despite growing on the outside, passenger room is largely unchanged with a slight reduction in headroom (1/2 inch in front and 2/10ths in back). The drop in headroom isn’t really a problem since the old Escape has such a high roof-line to start with. Taller drivers will notice that Ford decided to reapportion legroom in the Escape by taking 1.2 inches from the front seats and moving it to the rear. Front seat comfort proved excellent on longer trips thanks to an upright seating position and comfortable padding but shoppers should keep in mind that only the SEL and Titanium models get a power driver’s seat. While there is no power passenger seat at any price, the Escape offers something never seen in this segment: optional full leather upholstery for $895.

Escape S, SE and SEL models come with an old-tech manual liftgate standard. Should you need some assistance, SE buyers can opt for an optional $495 power liftgate. Included as part of an $1,895 package with an up-level audio system and keyless ignition, the SEL model can be had with Ford’s new “hands-free” tail opener. The system (standard on Titanium) uses a sensor under the rear bumper that detects your foot. As long as the car’s key is with you, a gentle upwards kicking motion under the rear bumper will cause the liftgate to open or close. While the feature sounded gimmicky, I found it fairly handy when you have your hands full. Once inside, you’ll find three more cubes of space than the old Escape, but the cargo hold isn’t as square as the old CUV, making bulky item schlepping a bit less convenient.

Infotainment

The Escape S targets fleet shoppers and allows Ford to advertise a low $22,470 starting price. To make sure sales of the base models are limited outside of fleet sales, there is only one option: $295 for the SYNC system with Bluetooth phone integration. As you would expect, SYNC is standard on the $24,070 SE model along with XM Satellite radio and Ford’s “keyless” entry keypad on the door sill. If you dislike MyFord Touch, stop here since the system is standard on SEL and Titanium trims.

If you’re a tech lover like me, the optional (on SE, standard on SEL) $775 MyFord Touch system is a must have. The system uses a high-resolution 8-inch screen in the dash divided into four sections for entertainment, climate, phone and navigation. (If you don’t spent $795 for navigation, the system displays a compass in the upper right.) Rather than the dual 4.2-inch LCDs flanking a speedometer found in other Ford products, the Escape uses a single LCD like the Ford Focus. When MFT landed in 2010, the software had more bugs than a 5-year-old bag of flour. Thankfully, the latest version is more responsive and less problem prone, but MFT is still less reliable than the display audio systems from Nissan, Toyota and Honda. Despite the still-present flaws, this is still the sexiest system in this segment. Unlike the Fusion, Ford has decided to offer their excellent 12-speaker Sony branded audio system in the SEL model, although it only comes bundled with keyless ignition, the power tailgate and backup sensors thanks to the trend of packing features into option packages.

Drivetrain

Instead of the typical four-cylinder and V6 engine lineup, the new Escape’s engine bay is home to a four-cylinder only lineup. The base 2.5L engine and 6-speed automatic are largely carried over from the previous Escape and good for 168 horses and 170lb-ft of twist. As you would expect, this engine is only found in the FWD Escape S, a model that Ford expects to be sold almost exclusively to fleets.

Next up is the same 1.6L direct-injection turbocharged “Ecoboost” engine used in the Fusion. Proving yet again that turbos are the replacement for displacement, the 1.6L mill produces more power (178HP) and more torque (184lb-ft) at lower RPMs than the 2.5L while delivering 1 more MPG in the city and 2 more on the highway (23/33 FWD, 22/30 AWD). (Ford has opted not to offer the Fusion’s MPG-boosting start/stop system with the 1.6L for some reason.)

Optional on SE and SEL models ($1,195) and standard on Titanium is Ford’s ubiquitous 2.0L Ecoboost engine. The 240HP boosted four-pot replaces the old 240HP 3.0L V6. While the old V6 cranked out 223lb-ft at 4,300RPM, the 2.0 spools up a whopping 270lb-ft of torque from 1,750-4,500 RPM. In addition to the twist bump, fuel economy rises from 19/25 (FWD) and 18/23 (AWD) to 22/30 and 21/28. Trust me, you’ll never miss those two cylinders. What you will hiss however is the hybrid system. Ford has decided that the closely related C-MAX now replaces the Escape Hybrid in the lineup. It’s important to note that if you decide to feed your Ecoboost engine regular unleaded, you’ll experience about a 10HP power drop vs Premium.

If you need to bring that Ski-Doo or pop-up camping trailer with you, the 2.0L Escape has an optional towing package allowing up to 3,500lbs of trailer pulling. Ford’s AWDsystem is a $1,750 option on all models of the Escape (except for the base S model) and uses a JTEKT multi-plate clutch pack between the front and rear differentials. The system is capable of connecting or disconnecting the clutch pack any time it chooses to direct up to 100% of the power to the rear, assuming the front wheels have zero traction. If all wheels have traction the system can only vary power to the rear rubber from 0-50%.

Drive

The old Escape didn’t just look like a little truck, it drove like one too with plenty of body roll, brakes that didn’t inspire confidence and plenty of wind and road noise. Despite the weight gain, the new Escape feels far more nimble than the outgoing model thanks as much to the lowered ride height as the new suspension setup. Drivers will also enjoy a much quieter ride as the Explorer has benefited from the same extensive sound deadening treatments applied to the Fusion and C-MAX. Thanks to the longer wheelbase, and perhaps that extra curb weight, the new Escape never lost its composure on broken pavement.

Thanks to the turbo engine’s torque plateau, straight line performance is improved notably in spite of the 350 extra pounds. We hit 60 in 6.42 seconds, which is 1.5 seconds faster than a 2012 Escape V6 4×4 we got our hands on and about the same speed as the 2012 RAV4 V6. Of course all comparisons to a V6 CUV from Toyota are now moot since Toyota dropped the V6 for 2013. Ford’s 1.6L Ecoboost engine will be the base engine for most Escape buyers and this is the engine that should be compared with the competitions four-cylinder offerings. Regardless of engine choices, Ford’s 6-speed automatic is up-shift-happy and reluctant to downshift unless you bury the throttle. This shifting behavior is nothing new as most manufacturers resort to this kind of programming to improve fuel economy. On the bright side, the broad power band provided by both engines masks the transmission’s shift programming by allowing you to hill climb in high gear.

Our Titanium tester came equipped with all the features you need to traverse the urban jungle, from blind spot monitoring with cross traffic detection to a self-parking system. Ford’s “Active Park Assist” system is easily the most intuitive and easy-to-use system on the market. If you want to see it in action, check out our video on our YouTube page.

Ford claimed our 2.0L AWD Titanium model was rated for 21MPG in the city, 28 on the highway and a combined rating of 24MPG which is an improvement of 4MPG over the outgoing V6. During our 710-mile week with the Escape, we did see an improvement over the V6 tester, but it was only about 2MPG. The reason for this is obvious, in real-world mixed driving where you’re climbing hills and sitting in stop-and-go traffic, curb weight has a big impact since there’s more car to motivate. This the same reason the C-MAX performed below expectations in our tests as well. No matter what your Ford sales person might tell you, no, the 1.6L Ecoboost engine won’t give you the same economy as your old Escape Hybrid. Sorry.

Aside from no longer looking like a butch trucklet, the Escape is better in every way than the outgoing model, and isn’t that what progress should be? Of course, progress rarely comes free. The base Escape is $1,000 dearer than year’s model and our fully-loaded Titanium tester busts the budget at $35,630. With a three-engine lineup, more gadgets than many luxury cars and optional full-leather upholstery, the Escape is both a Kia Sportage competitor and gives the Acura RDX a run for its money. Until we can get our hands on the refreshed RAV4, the Escape is at the top of my shopping list and it should be on yours as well. Let’s just hope Ford doesn’t recall that 1.6L Ecooost engine again.

 

Ford provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review

Specifications as tested

0-30: 2.36 Seconds

0-60: 6.42 Seconds

1/4 Mile: 14.95 Seconds @ 91.2 MPH

Average Fuel Economy: 22 MPG over 710 miles

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

58 Comments on “Review: 2013 Ford Escape Titanium Take Two (Video)...”


  • avatar
    NormSV650

    That’s actually a few mph behind the 360+ HP Taurus SHO in the 1/4 mile and faster than most V6 Japanese sedans who don’t offer turbo as an option.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Assuming, of course, that Alex’s methods and numbers are directly comparable to whatever stats you are referencing. Got to be careful about comparing between publications.

      • 0 avatar
        Alex L. Dykes

        This is quite right. I would hesitate to make a comparison until we get an SHO on the drag strip and 0-60 test it with our 10Hz GPS tester.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The new, compact 3840 pound CUV Ford Escape, priced from $20,999 to $39,999; the first compact CUV with an available 240 horsepower ecoboosted motor that can outperform many 25% to 40% lighter 225hp to 310hp “sports cars” from 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile (in a miracle of the laws of physics turned inside out).

        *Fire extinguisher sold separately.

        **Microscope and midget hands to do anything other than add windshield wiper fluid to the more-stuffed-to-the-brim-with-things-than-a-world-class-hoarder’s-basement engine bay sold separately.

        ***Alex Dykes’ reported numbers reported for acceleration and 1/4 mile under severe-skepticism embargo.

        ****Tell the Honda CR-CV and Mazda CX-5 that even if you’re to be had at $22k, if you ain’t pimpin’ your compact cute ute, you ain’t necessary.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        p.s. (per my comments below in direct response to Alex’s remarks)– I haven’t done a complete analysis of the historical record, but this may be one of the fastest vehicles, if not THE fastest vehicle, given its power-to-weight ratio, ever tested (again, I haven’t done any formal check of the record).

        This vehicle, when equipped with the 2.0 liter turbo, has 1 horsepower per 16 pounds of vehicle curb weight, for a power to weight ratio of 1:16 lbs. Yet it’s faster to than vehicles having power to weight ratios of 1:12 lbs. Impressive, that.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        For those readers unaware, and who may be confused by some of our (the B&B) seemingly incredulous feedback, Alex has only recently revised the 1/4 time, as it was listed @ 100mph+ and around 14 seconds flat, originally.

        The 0-60 time (at least the non-revised one currently still reported) still seems somewhat optimistic given the weight issue mentioned earlier…

        (So, I put this out there to un-confuse those who may have be confused by what would now appear to be many of the readers’ (righteously) indignant remarks throughout the comment section.)

        Then again, the Escape could probably hit those far more optimistic numbers posted initially, because it’s a Ford, after all, and most definitely a true “game changer,” able to defy the laws of physics.

      • 0 avatar
        Turkina

        My entry into the best HP/weight/0-60 CUV competition. 2004 Subaru Forester XT. 210 hp, ~3200-3300 lbs, 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Of course, times did go down over the years due to added safety, and the gearing sucks for highway mileage :P

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        In the “being careful” category and also in response to “deadweight” comparisons of expected 0-60 and 1/4 mile times based on a simple power to weight ration really cannot be done if the engines in those cars have wildly different torque curves, usually as the result of one having forced induction and the other not having it.

        The fact that the forced induction engine reaches peak torque at a relatively low rpm and maintains it until peak rpm (and peak hp) is reached will make that engine faster in an acceleration test than most normally aspirated engines of the same peak horsepower. That is because those engines do not develop their peak torque until a much higher rpm, usually not far from the rpm where peak hp is developed.

        There are any number of examples of this out there. One that comes to mind right now is the BMW 3-series with the new base engine “328i”, a 2 liter 4 with forced induction rated at 240 hp. If I recall correctly, that engine propels the current car (“F30″) to 60 mph faster than the lighter, “330i” car of a few years ago with BMW’s 3 liter normally aspirated six, which was rated in that application at 250 h.p.

        Also, in the 0-60 sprint, transmission gearing plays a factor, especially the number of gear changes that are required (although I would think this less a factor for an automatic than for a manual tranny).

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Thanks for the update Alex.

      Regarding the Subaru Forester, that’s quick. But I betcha I could get a diesel pickup to match the XT and still get similar 20 mpg.

      http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f107/2004-xt-bad-mpg-78502/

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    Let the Ford Hate Fest Begin..lol

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Ford Escape Titanium Ecoboost?

    Is it just me, or are American model names starting to mirror Japanese model names in length and absurdity?

  • avatar
    kars

    i like some of Ford’s new design work, but this isn’t one of them. I find this thing ugly on the front end and only ok at the back. It is distinctive though.

    I drove a mustang with a similar transmission. It would up shift at the first opportunity and you could feel the response drain right out of the engine. All the more annoying in a car like the mustang and definately a deal breaker for me.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I like the way this CUV looks, they created a sleek look without wrecking the cargo capacity. If the 1.6 proves reliable and can deliver comparable fuel economy as the CRV and RAV4 4-pots, this will be a great vehicle.

    I lament the loss of ground clearance over the old model, but I’m one of the few odd ones who cares about such things in this segment.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Unlike other brand-new models (cough-coughMALIBU) this new Escape has not seen a precipitous drop in sales (despite those recalls), though November/December sales were down a combined ~6K units compared to last year.

    Were all those people disappointed that Ford ditched the trucklike looks? Maybe. But the number of new customers who like it will probably outnumber them in the long run.

    If Ford can sell an average of 20K per month, they’ll be sittin’ pretty.

    • 0 avatar
      SV

      Ford’s new models also tend to sell a bit slowly until production and inventories get up to speed. The new Focus got off to a sluggish start, but now it’s selling very well.

  • avatar
    mjz

    Overstyled. Overpriced.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Ditto. Seems to be a theme for Ford.

    Both the new and improved Escape and the new and improved Fusion dropped in sales last month.

    I doubt Ford can maintain their new and improved premium pricing, they never have been able to do so before, e.g., Contour, Mistake and TaurusII.

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean

      Disagree vehemently. As compared to similiar vehicles, the Escape remains a good value, especially against the Rav 4 AND its not a freakin’ fugly Hyundai/KIA.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      “Ford has been on a roll,” means different things to different people. Have they started making quality products? Nope. The complete opposite. Have they grown in sales? Nope. Their overpriced, functionally compromised by gaudy styling new models struggle to sell as well as the ones they replaced. Have they gained market share? Nope, they’re shedding it like a wanna-be GM. Ford must do wonderful things for the press though, because their cars aren’t fooling many buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Almost got a manual Mustang until I read about their issues. Ford has done wonders with CVT’s and DCT’s. And now turbos.

      • 0 avatar
        86SN2001

        CJ,

        The automotive media is drunk on the Ford kool-aid. A gauge cluster that doesn’t look right under certain lighting conditions is unforgivable because it’s from GM, but 6 recalls across two different models for pretty serious things (bursting into flames, faulty headlights, etc) is completely ignored because it involved Ford and their incompetent CEO.

        Even One Ford has been shown to be a complete joke and, yet, nothing.

        Ford is, by far, the absolute worst of the big 3 here in the USA. Their products are terrible and full of quality issues. They refuse to even acknowledge some life threatening issues with their terrible appliances (new Explorer losing steering ability anyone?), they lie about their fuel economy numbers, etc.

        The sooner they get rid of that goof Big Al, the sooner they can start making vehicles actual people want to buy, and not an entire lineup of fleet queens.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        CJ,

        FWIW, I did hear that they came out with a “game-changer” recently.

      • 0 avatar
        cognoscenti

        CJ, I don’t own or drive a Ford, and haven’t since the Chinese-sourced Mustang GT transmission snafu scared me away. However, I do read every one of your comments and they are highly critical, especially of domestic car manufacturers. Can you honestly recommend ANY vehicle from ANY global manufacturer, or are you just taking daily joy in critical exposition?

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I’m very comfortable recommending Toyota trucks and Honda cars and crossovers with K-series engines.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I’m again finding the 0-60 and 1/4 times very hard to understand. The lighter by nearly 300 LBS Fusion FWD and AWD with the same 240 HP 270 torque Ecoboost 4 banger has been a 6.8-7.0 second 15 second 1/4 mile affair both in other magazine tests and in my own test drives. How can the heavier, higher off the ground pudgier Escape be this much quicker than it’s sedan counterpart? Does the Escape have more aggressive gearing and an underrated engine perhaps?

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      When we get our hands on an AWD Fusion we will post the numbers. I can say for certain that the AWD helps the Escape a great deal because the FWD model was slower due to the traction.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    I have never seen an escape that tested that fast… Its quite possible but odd that its faster then a Fusion.

    • 0 avatar
      Alex L. Dykes

      CelticPete, we’re not saying it is faster than a Fusion 2.0 AWD. Keep in mind that we have not tested the Fusion 2.0 AWD so there is nothing to compare these numbers with.

  • avatar
    dolorean

    Anyone who has traveled from the states to Europe has the same question once returning home; When is Ford (or GM) going to bring that sweet rental I got from Sixt for sale here??!! Finally, without fausting the Euro car onto Mercury or Lincoln or ham-fistedly creating a whole new brand ala Merkur that no one understands and/or wants to fix, Ford has made the better decision to bring the good-stuff over here direct. This makes sense not just in an aesthetic and driver specific sense, but also helps the brand weather the malaise in the European car market at the moment by shipping its over-stock here as a new model year. Genius.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Not long ago, I looked at the C-Max Hybrid side-by-side with the new Escape. The C-Max compared pretty favorably. The two cars share a family resemblance on the outside. On the inside, they are almost twins with similar amounts of interior space and a very similar dashboard. Comparably equipped, they are similarly priced as well. There are two big differences. The Escape has 34.3 cu.ft. of cargo space behind the second row seats. The C-Max has 24.5 feet. (In both cases, not all that room is usable if you want to see out of the back window.) What the C-Max gives up in cargo volume, it makes up in fuel economy, with the C-Max promising about 50% more MPG, perhaps delivering 40% more MPG. The C-Max has a 0-60 time very close to the 1.6 liter Ecoboost Escape.

  • avatar
    daviel

    I’ll keep my Sportage another year.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Ford has certainly been more adventurous than GM and Chrysler in revamping its model lineup and that is probably a good thing. The interiors are a bit busy for my tastes but the materials quality is good. What worries me as a potential buyer is the ongoing reliability problems that Ford seems to be having with just about every new product. I like the new Escape but Ford will have to prove its reliability and durability before I’d be prepared to write a check.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Quarter mile in 14.6 @ 100?!?!

    Dayum.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Edmunds tested same car, here:
    http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-v/2012/2013-ford-escape-vs-2012-honda-cr-v-comparison-test.html

    Escape was 0-60 mph (sec.) 7.4 and achieved 20.5 mpg. CR-V was slower but got 27.5 mpg, 34% better than the Escape.

    RDX was both faster and more fuel efficient:
    http://www.insideline.com/acura/rdx/2013/2013-acura-rdx-full-test.html

    These vehicles were tested by the same publication using their standard procedures.

    btw, they picked the CR-V over the expensive Ford. But at only $3k more, the RDX seems like a bargain compared with the Escape for those w/ sporting pretensions and with resale, the Acura would probably be less expensive to own.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Please leave the arbitrariness of logic and your so-called facts out of this thread.

      This is TTAC, where Ford is the anti-GM. Ford wins and price is the least important (maybe even an altogether non-relevant) criteria in any testing & comparisons with competitors.

      The end.

      • 0 avatar
        Alex L. Dykes

        I have stated this may times before and I’ll do it again. Don’t compare ANY publication’s 0-60 numbers with another publication. There are many factors involved from different equipment, whether they use rollout, road surface, temperature (especially if it is turbocharged), tires, tire condition, transmission and suspension modes, and certainly the driver when testing a car with a manual transmission. Therefore I cannot say, and nobody can conclude from these numbers, how much faster or slower the Escape 2.0 is than the Fusion 2.0. And that’s because I haven’t tested the Fusion 2.0. If you want to know the answer to that question, you will have to find a news outlet that has personally tested both vehicles. Their individual numbers won’t be the same as ours, but they should have approximately the same spread. i.e. another publication might show car X at 5.5 and car Y at 6.5 while we shot it as 5.3 and 6.3 but the distance between the two should be roughly the same.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Numbers are numbers, and times are times.

        Either you accurately assessed, timed & reported the tested Escape’s 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, or you didn’t.

        It’s that simple.

        Why all the complicated double-speak about “comparisons” and other “publications” after the fact?

        I could see the relevancy of the importance of consideration of such times and comparing such metrics on a dry versus wet surface, or given greatly varying temperature differences, though.

        I haven’t done a complete analysis of the historical record, but this may be one of the fastest vehicles, if not THE fastest vehicle, given its power-to-weight ratio, ever tested.

        This vehicle, when equipped with the 2.0 liter turbo, has 1 horsepower per 16 pounds of vehicle curb weight, for a power to weight ratio of 1:16 lbs. Yet it’s faster to 60 & in the 1/4 mile than vehicles having power to weight ratios of 1:13 lbs OR EVEN LESS! Impressive, that (again, I haven’t done any formal check of the record).

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “btw, they picked the CR-V over the expensive Ford. But at only $3k more, the RDX seems like a bargain compared with the Escape”

      Big surprise, CR-V over Escape.

      This is the same Edmunds who *still* gives the 2003 Acura TL a 4 1/2 star rating, this despite the fact the transmission grenades in, well all of them. Not even a blub on the main page mentioning this, nada, zilch, zero… this is the sort of thing that goes under the CON section. Even on a used ride and thousands of complaints I would think these tools would put an asterisk on the main page of their review. Dips**ts.

      Rely on Edmunds alone at your peril.

      http://www.edmunds dot com/acura/tl/2002/

      http://www.carcomplaints dot com/Acura/TL/

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Your link shows that readers give the Acura a 4.5 rating.

        READERS.

        Which says nothing about Edmunds’ editors testing or that Ford has done a great job w/ cvt’s, dct’s and now flaming turbos.

  • avatar
    redav

    “Like their products or not, Ford has been on a roll.”

    That intro sentence would have been so much more fun if it had been: “Like their products or not, Ford has been on fire.”

  • avatar
    Alex L. Dykes

    I went back and reviewed the test runs on our 10Hz GPS tester. The 0-60 time is correct but the 1/4 mile time WAS wrong, the correct measurement is 14.95 Seconds @ 91.2 MPH and the article has been corrected.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      100 mph 1/4 time, 91.2 mph 1/4 time….it’s only a 9 mph 1/4 mile time discrepancy.

      It’s not as if people who questioned this earlier, mistakenly reported 1/4 mile time were dismissively told that different publications are able to produce different times from the same vehicles, or something like that…

      You should make mention of this correction within the body of your review, just so as to not further confuse people (just a humble suggestion that’s free, so treat it as such).

      Then again, you could have just left the incorrect 1/4 mile time up, because it is a Ford product, after all, and if any manufacturer’s product could theoretically move that much faster than what the actual and accurate tested number represented, it would be a Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      CelticPete

      Let me stick up for you a bit – Audi A4 0-60 5.6 seconds in both the MT and C and D reviews – with only 211 HP reported from the manufacturer.

      Truth is the numbers a car actually puts to the ground can vary tremendously depending on the model. It’s just odd that you tested faster then C and D and MT. These guys use light drivers/brake torque starts/and partially filled gas tanks to get the best times possible.

      But your time beats the Fusion which has the same engine and weighs less..

  • avatar
    crtfour

    Wow that is a steep MSRP for a small crossover. I get confused on the trim levels. Is a “titanium” or a “platinum” the higher trim level? Or does “platinum” only apply to the F150?

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      There is no “Platinum” trim for Ford cars. “Titanium” is the highest.

    • 0 avatar

      From what I can tell, Platinum only refers to the F-150 (as well as some high-trims on other car brands, like Toyota and Cadillac). Platinum was the highest trim-level on the F-150 until Ford recently added the Limited trim, which starts at a whopping $52K, or $6K more than the Platinum.

      Titanium, then, seems mostly for unibody models, and the European-derived ones at that. I’ve seen Titanium on the Focus, Fusion and Escape, but not on the Edge or Taurus, for example…

  • avatar
    bkmurph

    I get an intense feeling of déjà vu when I read about MFT having “more bugs than a 5-year-old bag of flour” at launch.

  • avatar
    campocaceres

    “Keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the steering wheel during a review”

    Hah– the first of your videos I watched I thought you stared way too intently at the camera.. made a bit uncomfortable at first. I did get used to it, though. But to be honest, my preference is for a video reviewer to treat it as though the viewer is a passenger during a ride, or having a conversation in a garage.

    The new Escape seems pretty nice, and a car I am trying to recommend for a friend. Ford has finally been hitting a solid consistency across all of it’s models, it seems. I remember reading on here that this was a goal for Alan Mullaly when he first came aboard.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    But don’t you think they could have styled the car a little? I believe there’s a few square inches that aren’t festooned with angular adornments and conflicting shapes. Maybe next they’ll just sell cars with the dazzle-doodly test-car camouflage wraps left on.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India