![]() While the larger Escape EcoBoost engine can clearly substitute for a V-6, it's not clear that it gets substantially better real-world gas mileage than the larger engine would have. In the end, we're forced to conclude that turbocharging is a mixed blessing for gas mileage. The more powerful SkyActiv engine eliminated any worries about reserve acceleration, and roughly equaled our 1.6-liter Escape-though it was far from as fast as the 2.0-liter Escape we initially tested.Ģ014 Ford Escape SE 1.6-liter EcoBoost, Catskill Mountains, NY, Nov 2013 ![]() We later tested a CX-5 with the larger, 184-hp 2.5-liter SkyActiv four-again, without turbocharging-and it returned 29.7 mpg on the same test route, against an EPA rating of 26 mpg. The 2.0-liter SkyActiv CX-5 is less powerful-155 hp against the 1.6-liter Escape's 178 hp-and felt like it had less reserve power for emergency situations. We're inclined to think that's a representative number, too, because the second trip odometer on our test Escape-which hadn't been reset for 1,763 miles-showed 24.7 mpg.īut the less-powerful EcoBoost Escape compares unfavorably to the gas mileage of a 2013 Mazda CX-5 compact crossover with a 2.0-liter SkyActiv non-turbo four, a six-speed automatic, and all-wheel drive-which returned an indicated 33.1 mpg over about the same test route, against its EPA combined rating of 28 mpg. ![]() The 1.2-mpg difference is well within the 10-percent margin we think most drivers are comfortable with, so we doubt it's a serious drawback. 2013 Mazda CX-5 road test, Catskill Mountains, NY, April 2012
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |