Conceived in a desperate search of EPA credits, the Ford Escape has walked in the shadows of its bigger brothers, Explorer and Expedition. Despite the Escape’s loveless upbringing, it prevailed, providing easy cream on Ford’s SUV gravy [train]. In the last fuel surge, the Escape found favor: a future president escaped his Chrysler 300C for a gas/electric version of the venerable Fordette. In the ongoing clamor for right-sized, fuel efficient vehicles, one would think the Escape’s inner virtue would shine through. Instead, Ford stifled its middle child by birthing a clusterf*ck of overweight CUVs (Edge and Flex). For 2009, the Escape, again, eats from the scraps.
The Escape has never been a standout in its appearance, nor has it ever been regarded unattractive. Functional may be the most apt description. The 2008 model year’s redux boxed-out the boxy CUV, but deprived it of the Ford family’s trademark bold three-bar grille (black sheep anyone?). Taken as a whole, from a distance, the Escape remains a reasonably decent looking vehicle. Closer inspection reveals a busy mish-mash of hapless shapes, indents, grooves and lines that scream “design by committee.” Nobody could agree on what an Escape should truly look like, so everybody got a vote.
Stepping inside reveals a whole new world of dissonance. The 2001-07 vintage interior was an utterly forgettable homage to Ford-of-the-day high-gloss, poorly grained polymers, Chiclet-inspired buttonry, and second-rate upholstery. The 2008’s redesign brought an utterly dismissable homage to Ford-of-today semi-gloss, meagerly-grained polymers, Lego-inspired buttonry, and self-inflicted second-use upholstery made of recycled fibers (no joke). It’s not ugly, but it ain’t right.
First up, the positives: “Ice Blue” instrument backlighting is a welcome improvement over Ford’s puke green of yore (good riddance). The passenger and cargo compartment are equally spacious for its class, and visibility is excellent. Plentiful cubbies and storage bins surround the front occupants. And that’s about it.
On the negative side, the Escape’s center stack’s buttons are tiny and difficult to navigate at a glance. Ergonomics were an after(noon?)thought. To wit: steering wheel controls have no tactile representation, the illumination controls are hopelessly lost below the driver’s knee along with the controls for the cluster-mounted info center, the dead pedal (wait . . . what dead pedal?), and Ford’s on-again, off-again love affair with the seventy-gazillion functions on a singular steering column stalk (thank Holy Dieties the cruise buttons remain on the wheel, unlike GM).
The Escape’s seats lack lumbar support, the rear bench is (un)remarkably flat, and the recycled-fiber cloth upholstery feels like recycled-fiber, minus the cloth. A myriad of plastics are reasonably soft to the touch, but the sheen and graining wouldn’t convince you of it at a glance. In sum, the rectilinear design theme is a continuum of discontinuity.
Enough kvetching. Let’s drive.
Ford’s venerable Duratec 3.0 V6 displacing three liters arrives for ’09 with new twists: a six-speed autobox, electric-assist EPS steering (no pump thus no parasitic losses), and a host of massages and tweaks. The resulting 240 hp (40 hp gain) and 223 lb·ft of torque make for surprising haste in this sprightly 3528 lb trucklette. When [if] the transmission decides to [maybe] grab the right gear [stay tuned . . . ], the Escape rips off 60 mph sprints that seem far faster than the manufacturer’s claim of high-8s. If the Escape’s corporate father bequeathed it nothing else, it’s got balls.
Unfortunately, if you haven’t figured it out by now, the new 6F35 transmission completely neuters the Escape’s go-fasterism. Downshifts are lazy and indecisive. Rolling stops constantly get stuck in second gear, and twice (count ’em: one, two) in my week-long Detroit Escape, the transmission hailed “no joy” and checked out completely. This during some frustrated passing maneuvers on city streets (engine returned to idle speed and transmission took three seconds to reset and contemplate the appropriate gear). Anecdotal evidence suggests that Ford transmission calibrations are no stranger to epic failure.
When underway, the Escape feels chuckable. The limits of adhesion arrive early and often. The Conti tires throw the towel to understeer first, but drop-throttle can quickly correct a push without excessive drama. The bean counters stormed the Brake Systems design offices like the FDIC on any given Friday; the Escape is the first automobile in modern days to actually step backwards in engineering time to drums at the rear. Surprisingly, little effort or feel seems lost. The EPS system features cool new tricks like pull-drift compensation to soak up crosswinds and road crowns. It works, and steering feel does not seem sacrificed (not to imply it was stellar to begin with).
Despite the nits and gripes, my heart forgives the Escape. It’s a victim, not a criminal. A patchwork of misfit pieces, it nonetheless manages to work—no thanks to its negligent parents. In the end, the Escape succeeds how a middle child does: as a scrapper. But for how long?
67 Comments on “Review: 2009 Ford Escape...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
A myriad of plastics are reasonably soft to the touch, but the sheen and graining wouldn’t convince you of it at a glance.
This comment is a gift to the Escape. The Escape’s interior has the hardest, nastiest plastics around (except for the 09 Focus maybe). The interior quality is the Escape’s biggest failing.
When so many small CUVs are compromising the “u” with swoopy lines, the boxy Escape fits the traditional SUV mold. I only hope Ford finds a way to keep the Escape as a small SUV (on a new chassis, of course, since 10 years is long enough on this one!) when they bring the Kuga CUV here in a couple of years.
Gee, I have always thought that the current Escape is kind of attractive, in a functional sort of way. But then, I always liked the 68 Chrysler, too.
And on the lack of a 3 bar grill – aren’t those only for the cars or the crossovers that are supposed to be more car-like? Trucks get the horrid SuperDutyesque grille, so I presume that the Escape is trying to look like the F-350s little brother. At least they pull it off better on the Escape than on the E-150, which is truly, truly ugly.
the transmission hailed “no joy” and checked out completely
Sorry, but that’s all I needed to read to get scared away. That should never happen, period.
i like this review but forgive me if i’m wrong but isn’t this a Mazda Tribute in an ill fitting dress?
My feeling is this… it was always gonna be a patchwork affair. The Tribute is not a good small SUV… it is decidely old fashioned in every respect compared to the other Japanese. It always trails them.
When Ford got it all they did was spend the minimum to differentiate it from it’s Kimino weaing cousin.
It will always be an also ran unless Mazda puts in a genuine effort and why would they when they keep their ‘nagare’ design SUVs to themselves. Mazda were never really strong in SUVs anyway. Ford engineers are doing a conversion they really don’t want to. This is always going to be a recipe for mediocrity.
Ford and Mazda just want a stooge to steal a few sales from the companies who put in a real effort.
Now that the Koreans have actually put in some hard yards (eg. KIA Sorrento with a 2.2 litre CRDi with 200hp and 320lb) I can’t see this car ever being considered by anyone serious about buying a class leading product.
It’s sad. Sometimes Ford put in a mediocre effort and it pays off (Mustang GT) but most of the times a mediocre effort means a mediocre car.
I never could understand why Ford didn’t put more into the Escape. It is far more profitable than a unibody CUV, is just as fuel efficient, and has great road manners for a body on frame SUV, IMHO. If they upgraded the exterior and interior I’m sure it could have sold in at least Edge numbers, and been a green darling with its hybrid powertrain option. Maybe it wouldn’t be class leading but how many body on frame, and thus tow capable and trucklike durability having, SUV’s are out there in this size?
@TonyJZX:
Your entire comment is completely backwards. The Tribute is an Escape in an ill fitting dress, etc…All your comments are valid, just reverse the brands.
If they upgraded the exterior and interior I’m sure it could have sold in at least Edge numbers
FYI: the Escape has sold almost 45,000 units so far this year vs the Edge at 25,000. So sales wise it is doing ok.
guyincognito: I never could understand why Ford didn’t put more into the Escape. It is far more profitable than a unibody CUV, is just as fuel efficient, and has great road manners for a body on frame SUV, IMHO.
Isn’t the Escape unibody?
I’ve only driven an 04 V6 4-speed AT and it wasn’t bad. Went with a Mazda3 wagon instead, then I was moved to Idaho. The extra utility and ground clearance would have been nice.
Fast forward 3 years; we’re looking at a “larger” family vehicle to replace the old 760 Turbo. The Escape (wife prefers the Mariner, you can get a green color…go figure) has been on my list, easy to drive, utilitarian, and good road manners. Seems the transmission is a let-down though.
Being a FoMoCo/Mazda fan, I’d rather go for the CX7 and sacrifice the city MPGs. And maybe the more “rough and tumble” image. Both are comparable in size. Really need the clearance more than the 4WD/AWD system, otherwise we’d just get another wagon or even a Mazda5.
@guyincognito :
The Escape is unibody. CD2 platform.
The EPS was introduced on the 2008. And the previous conventional system, IMO, provided much better road feel, among the best for a compact SUV.
OTOH, the 2008 interior was much higher in quality than the earlier interior. It might not seem this way at first glance, but sit in them back-to-back and the improvement seems substantial.
guyincognito: the Escape is and has always been a unibody design.
Based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey, Escapes from 2003 on range from better than average to the high side of average in reliability. The 2008 has been averaging half a repair trip per year. The most common problem has been a leaking connection to the transmission cooler. Ford was aware of the problem, so it shouldn’t affect the 2009.
Additional participants in our survey always helpful.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Why on earth does Ford have such a mess of small CUVs/SUVs in its roster? The Escape, Flex, Edge, Taurus X, etc all seem to overlap each other’s market space at least partially. Why the hell can’t Ford just pick one body style and put a solid effort into making it truly great?
BTW, the Escape is unibody…it was based on the Mazda 626 platform, if I remember correctly.
Why on earth does Ford have such a mess of small CUVs/SUVs in its roster? The Escape, Flex, Edge, Taurus X” The Taurus X is dead, and all the others dont compete against each other at all. The Edge is just about style and is larger overall than the Escape were as far as the Flex is concerned it is giant in size comparatively. You guys are aware that Toyota has three CUV’s right, along with Honda as well.
I recently shopped for a CUV. Came down to Escape V6 vs. RAV4 V6. I looked at each in detail and agree 99% with the review.
Big cons for the Escape compared to the RAV4 were performance and road feel, cluttered exterior design and interior by Fischer-Price.
Positives for Escape were better ground clearance and significant discount for “loaded” models. At the base level the prices were about the same.
Not a lot of happy shopping in CUV land if you want a V6 in the $25-30K MSRP range.
Dragophire–Toyota actually has four, if you include the Edge-like Venza. And they’ll have five if they come out with something the size of the Flex, which seems inevitable.
one other thing… if this car has origins in 2001 (around the time george w bush was inaugurated) how can you expect it to be competitive?
2ndly since it’s based on the mazda 626 which was developed by mazda and not a model sold by ford i dunno what to beleive?
in any case i’ve driven both and both sucked
i like the idea of a smaller SUV – 3,500lbs sounds pretty damn good to me but again this is indicative of it’s age
the competition has moved on to 4,000lbs – not that that’s a good thing but i’d like to see what the NCAP for this is.
“The Taurus X is dead, and all the others dont compete against each other at all. The Edge is just about style and is larger overall than the Escape were as far as the Flex is concerned it is giant in size comparatively. You guys are aware that Toyota has three CUV’s right, along with Honda as well.”
Ok, so then why does the Explorer still exist? Oh gee, I suppose that’s to get the “mid-size towing and off-roading SUV market” or whatever.
The point is that Ford has way too many CUVs/SUVs in its stable, and most of its smaller ones don’t sell in massive numbers and are poorly aimed at whatever niche they’re supposed to be targeting. Take the Flex, for instance – “since we couldn’t figure out how to build a decent minivan, we’ll sell some kind of truck-looking ‘CUV’ of a similar size (but with no better fuel economy), and that outta sell well”. It hasn’t.
I’ve been inside both an Edge and an Escape, and the Edge doesn’t feel much bigger on the inside. It doesn’t ride much smoother either, and the “stylish” exterior design cuts sharply into interior space. (Oh, and BTW is the Edge was supposed to be “all about style”, somebody should have informed its interior designers, because they clearly didn’t get the memo.) The Freestyle/Taurus X would have stood a chance if they’d have put some real marketing effort behind it, but of course they didn’t bother and a decent vehicle never came to fruition saleswise.
I like the Escape, it’s good-looking, reasonably efficient and comes available as a very efficient and functional hybrid. It also comes available with a manual, which isn’t as common as it should be. I’ve only sat in one at the auto show, but it was a reasonably nice place to be. I like the new Subaru Forester better, but 3 stars seems about right for the Escape.
kowsnofskia, I think Ford is aware of the overlap between the Escape, Edge and Taurus X. The Flex is monster-huge and isn’t in the same category. It’s my understanding that the Taurus X is on it’s way out, which will leave the Edge and Escape in the small/mid SUV segment. IMO, The Edge chases a younger, hipper more citified demographic, where the 2-box Escape is a more practical and traditional (and better, if you ask me) overall package aimed at suburbanites and families.
I think the two cars bring in different customers, though I might be wrong. They’re sufficiently different and unique from one another and Ford must want a few offerings in the increasingly popular CUV segment.
The 2008 model year’s redux boxed-out the boxy CUV, but deprived it of the Ford family’s trademark bold three-bar grille (black sheep anyone?).
The Escape is part of the “E” marketing family (Escape, Explorer, Expedition, the trucks, etc; as opposed to the Fusion, Focus, Five Hundred), and thusly, under Ford’s long term marketing strategy for the last two thirds of 2007, was to get a look akin to it’s bigger cousins.
The problem is that Ford switches marketing strategies more often than people change the undergarments. So Ford dropped the E/F delineation of names, slapped the three-bar on the trucks and generally made a mess of what was a reasonably coherent plan.
And now they’re dropping three-bar, which is ok (it was restricting, and might not have aged well) but jeezus, can they possibly stick with something for more than a month or two?
That said, this is a good car that’s been left too long on the vine. Like the Focus, it kicked Toyonda ass in 2000 but was let down by terrible teething pains. Also like the Focus, it’s been left on the same bones for too long and has been lapped badly.
Everybody I know who bought an Escape chose it for the same reason. It’s a good dog car. I mean that literally. They carry big dogs around with them a lot and the Escape works for them. I don’t know what about it that makes it such a good dog car, but the owners like it.
Why on earth does Ford have such a mess of small CUVs/SUVs in its roster?
Well,
the Escape is in the $19-30k range
the Edge is in the $26-35 range and is 5 passenger crossover
the Flex is in the $26-42k range and is 7 passenger crossover
the Explorer is in the $26-40k range and is a 5/7 passenger BOF suv
so they do have 3 suv’s in the same price range, but targeted at different customers. I can’t imagine there is much cross shopping between the Edge, Flex, and Explorer.
I think the 2006 models were a lot cleaner and good looking than the later ones. The new Escape looks like the old escape ate a lot of Chunky Monkey.
Alright, finally something I know quite a bit about since I’ve driven Escapes as company cars since their inception. I’ve driven an 02, 04, 06, and now 09.
The first generation, was horrible. It was the noisiest car I have ever ridden in, the interior was laughable (although, unlike GM, Ford has managed to make a cheap interior that somehow doesn’t rattle), didn’t have a center armrest, and overall was a just a cheap me to type car.
What I call the second generation (06-07)even though it was still the same car more or less, was when the shifter was moved from the column to the floor. This made the car somewhat more up to date and not as bargain basement as the previous versions. Still, it was noisy on the inside and other than the shifter move, it was still the same dash and cheap materials, and just an overall average car at best. Gas mileage was around 18-20mpg in mixed driving (V6 on all of them so far).
My current Escape is a 2009 and it has the 4-cylinder (I was given the option of loaded 4-cylinder or stripped down cloth V6). Even in loaded trim, the front seats are the only leather saddles in the car. The rear seats are a pleather type material. The ride is much improved over prior generations and the car is much more hushed at highway speeds. The interior while not the best, is definitely a step in the right direction and certainly functional once you get used to it. It’s got Sync and Sat to keep me entertained. It also has color selectable ambient lighting as well. The only thing missing is nav and moonroof otherwise, it is hard laoded. Overall, by no means is it a luxury ute or should be considered as such. But for what these loaded 4-cylinders are selling for and the gas mileage they are returning (for me, about 25mpg in mixed driving), they aren’t a bad choice at all. Especially for those who desire a higher ride height than a car. Honestly, getting in and out of this car is probably the easiest of any car I’ve ever owned or ridden in as the height is a perfect step in and out for a 6′1 tall individual. The cargo space is decent too considering this is classified as CUV/SUV. It may not have the interior of the Rav4/CRV but you won’t pay as much for it either.
BTW, they have all been extremely reliable other than normal maintenance with no issues whatsoever other than a recall for a bad rear liftgate strut in the 02 I believe.
Hate to say it but the basic concept of the Escape beckons back to the original Bronco II. How long ago was that? 25-years? I have heard, however, that there are some extremely aggressive discounting going on for all Escape trim levels including hybrid, however TrueCar.com doesn’t necessarily show much other than the $2,500 incentive currently offered on gas-only. May be able to pick up a base model for close to 16K in the near future if not now.
derek–what kind of gas milage do you get with the 4 (auto or manual?
Thanks.
I got the 4 cylinder version of this for 3 days from Enterprise. I completely agree with the review…there’s so much more this platform could be. The interior was so dreadful compared to the current CRV (even the last generation CRV….hell, maybe even the first gen CRV).
Having driven CRVs (4 cylinder, obviously) and RAV4s (admittedly a V6), I’m not sure why anyone would buy this…except *maybe* the hybrid. Or unless these are going for fire sale prices. You can’t tell me that most Ford Escape shoppers aren’t going to cross shop the CRV and RAV4, though.
Look, the Ford stockholder in me wants these to sell…but the pistonhead in me asks why they would?
A base (but still not bad: power windows, power door locks, A/C, ABS, 6 air bags) Escape can be had for about $15K even, and a loaded V6 can be had in the very low $20s. At those prices it is a buy.
Especially the base Escape. Ford’s leather sucks, and all the extra features are going to stop working in a year or two, so why go for the loaded Escape.
To Ford’s credit a manual can still be had in the base model, and even the I4 is paired with the 6-speed if an automatic is specified.
Just glad to see a review point out my pet peeve with most vehicles: the dreaded “seventy-gazillion functions on a singular steering column stalk”.
As mentioned GM is the clear leader of this horrible user interface. Case in point my father’s TrailBlazer which has a Rubik’s Cube on the end of the stalk. Turn, push, twist, press, slide, cruise, lights, wipers… WTF!?! Why is it so hard to get this right? Honda figured it out years ago: one stalk controls the lights, the other the wipers and cruise buttons go on the steering wheel.
As for the Escape: it might be the only CUV out there with a SQUARE opening in the back, all other utes seem to have a odd-shaped porthole thru which you can (or can not) load cargo, thus defeating the whole purpose of the vehicle. I blame the Murano for starting this trend with its extra curvy bubble-butt.
The Escape is okay, but I would take a RAV4 over it. The only thing that keeps the Escape on the radar is the way Ford seems to be giving them away. Toyota offers $500 every now and then on the RAV4, but Ford is offering cash rebates and zero percent in many of their promotions.
If anyone is thinking Escape hybrid, I drove one the other day and that thing has a very stiff ride. Unless the Escape hybrid gets 100 MPG, it is not worth the harsh ride. Just getting 30 MPG or whatever it is, cannot make the suffering worth it.
Having driven many, many, many Escapes I have no doubt in my mind why it sells. It is practical, fuel efficient, has great visibility, an affordable price, and a few must have features for certain buyers.
I’ve never encountered one with a transmission that took 3 seconds to respond to throttle input, but I will admit it is tuned for economy more than performance, but that is what the people buying Escapes want. Similarly the driving dynamics and (lack of) steering feel make it an effortless around town grocery-getter/soccer-mom vehicle. It would completely embarass itself around an autocross track, yes, but no one is buying it for that, and it isn’t being marketed as being in any way sporty.
The interior does have some hard plastics (a lot of them in fact) and the leather used in the Escape isn’t Fords best (compare it to the Mustang or F-150 leather and the difference is night and day) but it seems durable, and the cloth, while not being mouse-hair soft, is very stain resistant, thick, and utilitarian. It looks better in Limited trim with the piano-black center stack instead of the silver painted one, and best with the charcoal black interior environment that gets rid of the different neutral colors in favor of an all encompassing classy black from floormats to headliner.
The buttons on the steering wheel are smartly laid out (cruise on the left, audio/entertainment on the right, where they belong) and quite ergonomic for thumb use with hands at 10 and 2. Also, having dedicated 0 – 9 buttons (as the Escape does) on the center stack should be a must have for any vehicle that comes with satellite radio, to quickly tune in any channel without having to wait through scrolling.
Engines are peppy, ingress and egress are easy, the cargo floor is the perfect height, the rear seats fold truly flat, and the convenience of Sync is a gamechanger for a lot of busy people on the go.
Put it right next to the CR-V and Rav4 and the Escape holds its own in terms of practicality and usability, and comes out on top in terms of value, and that is what most people who are looking at this type of vehicle are interested in.
Oh, cool. Avis gave me one of these for the time being, except its on Michelins not Contis, but sounds like the difference is academic as I’m also experiencing the same handling…quirks. It is quite punchy, however.
I kept thinking to myself while driving it, “This isn’t too bad. I just wish it would corner flatter not give up the ghost so early.”
Then I realized I wanted a WRX five-door.
Now that the Koreans have actually put in some hard yards (eg. KIA Sorrento with a 2.2 litre CRDi with 200hp and 320lb) I can’t see this car ever being considered by anyone serious about buying a class leading product.
Well said. After seeing the 2008 Santa Fe last year, I went into a Ford dealership thinking the Escape would be a virtual tie, and it wasn’t even close.
@dwford:
[The Ford Escape]was jointly developed with Mazda, in which Ford owns a controlling interest, and was released simultaneously with the Mazda Tribute…
The Escape is built on the Ford CD2 platform, which is in turn based on the Mazda GF platform, which was used by the Mazda 626.
No, no. Tony’s right. This girl used to wear a kimono.
Don – The Sante Fe doesn’t compete with the Escape, the Tuscon does, and and the Escape has it all over the Tuscon. If you want the Sante Fe competitor, you go to the Edge.
Also, that diesel Sorrento isn’t a US option.
Thank God it doesn’t have the three-bar grille. Then it would look as bad as the Taurus, Focus, Fusion,Flex, and Edge.
@ NulloModo: the transmission hesitations occured during those “change your mind” shifts – light accel, drop throttle to the brake, then get back on the throttle to get by the slowpoke turning in front of me. Having (company) leased an ‘05 Explorer, this was all too familiar a phenomenon. However, the stall in the Escape was the most dramatic failure mode I’ve seen yet. Makes you think long and hard before jumping into traffic.
Similarly the driving dynamics and (lack of) steering feel make it an effortless around town grocery-getter/soccer-mom vehicle.
Perfectly described. It was an easy drive, just not very engaging.
“It is far more profitable than a unibody CUV, is just as fuel efficient, and has great road manners for a body on frame SUV, IMHO.”
“PaulieWalnut :
May 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@guyincognito :
The Escape is unibody. CD2 platform.”
D’oh. I should really have known better. In my defense, it is confusing as to why Ford would produce both this and the Edge, with both of them being unibody and very similarly sized, and I didn’t spend that much time at KCAP anyway.
It’s a trooper that’s for sure. It just seems to hold on and stay in the market.
Let’s look ahead. Ford Escape — minor improvements over the next year, maybe two. A few more small improvements and a continual effort to uglify the front grill. Time for an major upgrade, so let’s drop the Escape and come out with a new model and slap a new name on it, but likely no significant improvement. No reason to keep a product out there with brand recognition after all.
Ford’s SUV/CUV lineup isn’t as bloated as Toyota’s-
Rav4
Venza
Highlander
FJ Cruiser
Highlander
Land Cruiser
Sequoia
Ford’s Escape, Edge, Explorer, Flex, Expedition is in line with Nissan’s Rogue, Maurano, XTerra, Pathfinder, Armada lineup.
I still see quite a few Excursions on the road as well as the Lincoln Aviator.
Bring back the Bronco.
Why aren’t there many (any?) 2 door SUV’s like the old Broncos, Blazers and Rodeo’s.
Why aren’t there many (any?) 2 door SUV’s like the old Broncos, Blazers and Rodeo’s.
One: because they sucked and people didn’t like climbing up into them and then twisting past the door. No one really likes two-doors except people who never, ever have to deal with the rear seat, ergo…
Two: You may as well get a pickup truck with a covered bed and/or jump seats in the rear.
i like this review but forgive me if i’m wrong but isn’t this a Mazda Tribute in an ill fitting dress?
The Gen I Tribute was better looking than the G1 Escape. But now the new Tribute seems tremendously bland compared to the Ford.
These are nice, simple tall wagons, that is all. I like the CR-V a lot but they’re pricey, and the stylized back end compromises the whole purpose of the U. I’d take an XLT with the sport package.
It will be interesting where they slot the new Explorer, moving to the Taurus chassis I believe.
Hey Dave M. were on the same page – it pains me to say so, but from everything I have heard the current body on frame explorer and mountaineer are gone after 2010. The mountaineer stays dead, the explorer will be replaced by a van like crossover (think explorer america concept) based on the unibody CD4 platform (I think, whatever the Taurus, Flex, MKS, etc. is on). SO this will leave Escape vs. Edge and Flex vs. gutless said Explorer. And did I mention this Explorer CUV is too replace the outgoing Taurus X? Just too many CUV’s. If the Expedition wasn’t so ugly it would be the best of them IMHO. Of course that’s coming from a guy with Body on Frame for a name so go figure.
Escape has a few small advantages over RAV4.3 in the rear (for most applications), in particular the lifting gate over RAV’s door and also I think its window pops open for overlong items.
I went with RAV4 for 2 reasons:
– better gas mileage (I’ve got 4-cyl version)
– longer inside length in cargo configuration (177cm for RAV4)
It was about the same price back then. Mind, this is not relevant to modern prices.
BTW, I laugh at people who talk about HARD inside plastics. Seriously guys, my father cars had METAL dashes. The harder the better. What do you need to caress your dash for anyway?
I bought my 05 (“2nd gen”) in May of 04. While it may not have the best ergonomics or interior plastics, this is a great inexpensive CUV that does everything i ask of it. I have 98,000 miles on it without any problems. And Ford does sell a huge number of these so they must be doing something right. Although i do not like the current model and will wait for the next. Or better yet, the Kuga.
no_slushbox
and all the extra features are going to stop working in a year or two, so why go for the loaded Escape.
huh? I have a loaded Limited and after 5 years everything still works just fine.
“ruckover :
derek–what kind of gas milage do you get with the 4 (auto or manual?
Thanks.”
According to the computer, about 25-26mpg in mixed driving. Auto btw.
You know, I might actually consider a FORD product if they didn’t use the same damn steering wheel in Every. Product. They. Make. The same damn one they have been using for about 20 years or so. My perception is that all of the FORD owned brands, more any any other, take the whole “parts bin” problem to its extreme.
After 17 Tauri for my company car I started getting Escapes every year in 2002. From my experience it has been much more reliable than the Taurus ever was and a decent little truck, but I have a few issues:
The 08 and 09 dash hangs down very low and is very square, and I am always banging my shin on it as I get in the car. My poor shin remains bruised and scratched most of the time. I’m 6′3″, but my 5′7″ coworker was complaining about the same thing the other day, so it’s not a height issue.
The recycled material in the seats is impossible to clean if you get something on it. Water on a rag just seems to make the spot bigger. That’s bad with kids.
I’ve got no issues with transmissions. I’m sure it’s not up to BMW standards but I can’t recall any issues as described in the review. We got 4 cylinders this year and it is noisy, shakes when setting at idle, and gets less than 1mpg better than the 6 did, so go with the 6. It was always willing and competent enough.
In summary I won’t spend a bunch of time defending it, but I couldn’t blame you for thinking this might be a decent vehicle for your daughter.
derek, thanks. I am in need of a wagon-ish vehicle that gets good gas milage. (I do wish Mazda had offered a 6 wagon with a 4 cylinder)
A lot of people claim Ford has too many S/CUVs because they don’t believe that some want a car-like (rounded) vehicle and some don’t.
“I’m 6′3″, but my 5′7″ coworker was complaining about the same thing the other day, so it’s not a height issue.”
It’s never about height, it’s about leg length. Or torso length for headroom complaints
The Escape has been one of Ford’s best sellers as of late.