Ford Recalls Fire Escape For a Third Time

I can see your logic here, because turbocharged engines and heavy vehicles are both notoriously hard on freeze plugs.

I'm starting to buy your and Deadweight's tired line. BOF legacy V8 FTW.

@tresmonos What CJ and I've been saying for a while makes sense, if one really thinks about nothing more than basic, core realities. And it's not Ford-specific. CAFE standards and emissions standards in the U.S. and Europe are forcing automakers to implement systems and technologies that aren't proven in terms of reliability, as well as push the envelope of what can be safely and/or reliably done. Putting increasingly smaller (or is that decreasingly smaller?) motors in vehicles, many of which are only slightly less heavy, as heavy or much heavier than than their predecessors, simply puts higher stress on many components further up the system. This is true of normally aspirated or FI motors. I'm sure an honest and competent engineer who has experience in these matters would admit there's no free lunch, that the laws of thermodynamics, relativity & physics in general haven't changed, and that many of the emerging trends incorporating smaller motors, CV transmissions, new fuel injection technology and other "things" into modern vehicles will cause adverse consequences in terms of vehicle reliability. But I'm always receptive to rebuttals from those who claim that new materials and designs can mitigate or offset, wholly or partially, such loss of reliability.

@tresmonos Deadweight - It's probably fair to say that added complexity could lead to a greater chance of something going wrong. What you get for that added complexity more than makes up for whatever potential for problems might exist through, at least IMO. Turbocharging provides power when you want it, and fuel efficiency when you want it, so you don't have to make the choice between the 4 cylinder and the V6 when you buy, you can take it easy for better mpg or stomp on it to get where you're going quicker. Direct injection allows better fuel economy, greater performance, and the ability to use lower octane fuel at a given compression ratio. The benefits of these technologies are real, and are of value to many people buying vehicles. These are things that people want, not just things being forced on them by the government. Yes, there are still people who only care about simplicity and long term reliability, but they aren't the majority of the auto buying public. If they were then power windows and automatic transmissions would have never become popular. I'm not going to keep a vehicle beyond 100,000 miles, and I'm not likely to keep one over 60,000 miles. What happens at 200,000 miles is completely irrelevant to any buying decision I might make.

@tresmonos That same consumer mentality is why MFT sells so damned well. I couldn't fathom sticking with a cell phone more than 3 years, let alone imbeded legacy tech in a vehicle that I drive into the ground.

@tresmonos What happens at 200,000 miles has everything to do with residual values. Marketing puppets that have been conditioned to need a new car every 2.5 years pay dearly for not buying cars that are still valuable to their subsequent owners. Turbo charged engines are only more efficient in the vacuum of mileage testing. If you aren't going to use the power then you'll get better mileage with a higher compression, naturally aspirated engine of the potential you need. If you are going to use their power, you'll get better mileage with a higher compression, naturally aspirated engine of the potential that you need. Either choice will be more durable and require less maintenance. Direct injection may save you half a mile per gallon, but the money you save won't pay for your first DI related carbon removal, let alone a HPFP failure off warranty or just replacing the injectors, which get to live the good life in combustion chambers.

@tresmonos Yet (part of) the buying public gobbles up GTDI and tech. I ragged on a Focus ST for a weekend and I did not come anywhere close to EPA fuel economy ratings. Truth be told, I didn't give a damn. The car was a load of fun.

@tresmonos Residual value and resale matter to a degree, but you're still talking 24,000-60,000 mile range where the majority of cars come off of lease or find their 2nd owner. Most buyers don't keep a new car until the 100,000 mile mark, much less 200,000. Turbocharged engines have benefits beyond power per liter. Take the Escape for example, the 1.6 liter EcoBoost has about the same hp as the outgoing 2.5 liter NA 4 cylinder, but due to the turbo the torque peaks much earlier and stays flat through the majority of the rev range. The old 2.5 was noisy and slow to get going, the new 1.6 is quiet and always feels like there is plenty of power. As far as DI goes, you're assuming that the engines will need carbon building cleaned off, if it even builds up at all on the newer motors. We'll have to see what happens a few years down the road, but I have faith that the engineers have worked that issue out, and any buildup that does occur won't effect the performance of the engine during the useful life of the car.

@tresmonos For all the talk of the "benefits" the new, and in large part, relatively untested (in terms of reliability/durability) technologies bring to the table in fuel savings (marginal, IMO, when a new Sonata with a conventional transmission makes 200 hp with a N/A 4 cylinder and gets nearly as good fuel economy as the next gen Accord with a CVT and GDI that makes less horsepower), the buyer with the CVT that breaks down or GDI motor that gets chalked is not going to be happy about their extra 1 to 3 mpg whether they're under warranty (downtime) or not (major expense to fix or replace major components that will wipe out any marginal mpg savings dozens of times over instantly). I've never met unhappier vehicle owners than ones who can't drive their car until they shell out major $$$ to replace/fix something such as the motor, transmission or any other major component, whether their vehicle has 10,000 or 100,000 miles on it. In the context of current events automotive, check out what Nissan CVT owners have been faced with (and on a relative scale, Nissan CVTs have been better than most reliability-wise - yikes!), or those owning Audi GDI motors. I'll take a SWAG and say here and now that small displacement, turbocharged motors pulling 3,000+ lbs of vehicle (and even 3,800 lbs) plus occupants around are going to be an absolute boon for repair shops in the years ahead.

@tresmonos If only everything could be as reliable and efficient as my small displacement, Garrett T-3 BMW-Magna-Steyr M21 TDI Lincoln Luxury Sedan. >150,000 miles and still drives better than any modern Lincoln. Gets better mpg than my any current production Lincoln vehicle (sans the hybrid).

@tresmonos Nullo, you are correct about the point regarding complexity. Cars have become far more complex for two reasons. One, customers demand the features - high tech or otherwise - that increase complexity. Two, the standards and requirements that make today's cars so good. safe and clean simply can't be achived by vacuum diaphragms, mechanical stops, and gulp valves. As much as some lament the passing of the easy to fix, stone knives and bearskins approach to vehicle construction, the vast majority of consumers would be turned off by opening the driver's door only to be greeted by the stench of evaporated fuel. However, Nullo, ignoring what happens after 100K or 15 years is foolish. Sure the original buyer may not appreciate that access hatch that allows changing the fuel pump without dropping the tank. But the subsequent owners who deal with such things will remember, and they are likely to become new car buyers at some point. Reputations for reliability start with new car purchases. Reputations for durability come later and both are critical for reputations that support long term value. As the owner of two old Fords (20 years and 18 years) I think Ford has not done a bad job in this regard, though I'm sure jimmyy will weigh in against that. Which matters because the established reputation will carry you through the occasional bad product. Just look at Honda and the new Civic.

Which engine does it have? If it's a rental, chances are good it's the base 'S' with the lowly 2.5L normally aspirated engine. Ironically, the Escape 'S' is only offered to the public with a total of one (1) option: Sync. Maybe Ford should rethink their marketing strategy and start offering a few more options on the base 'S' Escape.

@rudiger There is no reason to buy the 2.5 over the 1.6 EB. The upgrade to the SE over the S is worth every penny. Personally, I wish the 2.5 hadn't even made an appearance in the new Escape or '13 Fusion. Even if you bought an Escape with the 1.6 on the first day it was offered and had to bring it in for all three recalls, the advantage in refinement and driveability it offers vs. the 2.5 would still make it a much better choice. I'm hoping that the Focus dumps the 2.0 NA I4 for the 1.6 EcoBoost, or at least offers it as an option sometime soon as well.

@rudiger Considering that the 1.6L doesn't get appreciably better fuel mileage than the 2.5L, and the latter may not be all that 'unrefined or undriveable' to some, the reason to get the 2.5L instead of the 1.6EB = $2400.

@rudiger I think the point being the SE is a huge step up with a bunch of other options. I'm not even looking at the Escape, because it's not quite as big as I'm looking for - so it's either an Equinox, POSSIBLY an SRX if I can get enough incentives, or a new Santa Fe for me. $29k gets a Santa Fe as loaded as I personally need it to be.