Ford unveiled Tuesday its refreshed 2017 Ford Escape complete with two new-ish engines and a slew of new technologies, including stop-start, that could help the crossover catch the best-selling Honda CR-V.
The base Escape still comes equipped with a 2.5-liter four, but Ford replaced its 1.6-liter turbo four with a 1.5-liter turbo four that produces the same power in higher trims. The outgoing 1.6-liter engine was the subject of at least two different recalls, including an incorrectly installed fuel line and overheating problem that could potentially cause fires.
A 2-liter boosted four from the Edge will also be available in the Escape. That engine produces 245 horsepower and will be available in SE and Titanium trims.
All Escape engines are paired with a six-speed automatic transmission and SE and Titanium models with turbocharged engines can be equipped with all-wheel drive.
Ford is keeping the same its lineup of available trims in the Escape: S, SE and Titanium trims will be available, with a sport appearance package available on the higher two trims.
According to Ford, start-stop technology on the turbocharged engines will improve fuel economy by 4 to 6 percent, but won’t affect fuel economy ratings. This year’s Escape managed 22/29/25 mpg with the 1.6-liter AWD, and 21/28/23 mpg with the 2-liter AWD according to the EPA.
Oh, and you can also turn your car on with your phone now. Ford has a system like OnStar, apparently.
In a statement Tuesday, Ford said it expects SUV sales to continue to grow. Currently, sales of SUVs and crossovers comprise about one-third of all new car sales. By 2020, Ford said it expects that number to grow to 40 percent.
In its recent contract with the United Auto Workers, Ford outlined a plan to shift car production from American plants to focus on building more crossovers like the Escape. Ford is expected to shift production of the full-size Taurus out of its Chicago plant to make way for the Lincoln MKC, and to produce more Escapes.
Escape with an Edge front clip? I see nothing wrong with this.
I think the current gen front end is more sleek. I don’t personally think this refresh is an upgrade in the looks dept.
Agreed. While not a fan of CUVs in general, I think the current Escape is rather nice looking. This so-called refresh looks more generic and somewhat trucky.
For what it’s worth, I thought the old Edge had more personality as well.
“Currently, sales of SUVs and crossovers comprise about one-third of all new car sales. By 2020, Ford said it expects that number to grow to 40 percent.”
That’s because increasingly, manufacturers are more loose with designations, and more and more keen to call things SUV/Crossover. In 1989 it would have been called “five door hatch.” Now it’s “CUV Activity Sportcross+ Lifestyle Ultra.” Sales are increasing, yes – but not as fast as the generalization and application of the SUV/CUV terminology.
I think that all of Ford’s SUV/Crossovers fit the established definition. They didn’t make anything like the Escape or Edge in 1989. Maybe the Flex can be considered a wagon, but that’s about it.
Oh, didn’t mean Ford in particular. I think they’re not really an offender of this. But most other brands are. Things like the 500X, Soul, EX35, Juke, etc.
Lol, the woman is about to put uncovered baguettes in the back cargo area.
1) That’s the dirtiest thing which will ever go back there.
2) I wouldn’t want my baguettes rubbing all over the floor mat. They’d go in the passenger seat facing outward, where I’d hold them from moving.
3) In the pic of the center console, the outlet cover down low near the gear lever is crooked.
4) Dash panel on passenger side where it meets door panel is very badly misaligned.
5) Seat stitching at seat tops is very sloppy and even puckered on driver seat.
Shh shh shh, it’s okay. The three baugettes in a paper bag is the international symbol for groceries.
Ohh. Quelle prestige!
I think #4 is just a shadow artifact from the lighting angle.
#3 doesn’t look crooked to me – and I suspect if it’s crooked at all, it’s because it’s an outlet cover, and to be able to put it on easily, you CAN put it on a little crooked. (In other words “if you care how it’s put on, put it on straight; it’s not fixed.”)
#5 – Agreed. I prefer not having visible stitching; it doesn’t actually look “luxurious”, and hiding it both protects actual stitching and makes the outside feel superior.
My parents’ Camry hybrid has ghastly fake embossed stitching in the plastics on the dash, and it’s *infuriating*.
Oh lord that Camry dash stitching. Piece of thread through plastic. Especially bad in the black interior with white threads.
I think the slight tilt in the outlet cover might be from the use of a wide-angle lens to capture the whole front interior. I could be wrong.
Sweet! It has a maturity and sobriety of style that Honda is giving up and Toyota lost when Akio saddled-up.
Now somebody besides plague-stricken VW is leaning towards grown-ups.
I am an old crusty fart, I guess. I cannot get my head around a 3500# car having less cubic inches than the Road King I used to ride. I don’t care if it is turbo’ed and super’ed, that is asking the powerplant to operate at an output level too high for long term reliability. People are now expecting 150,000 trouble free miles with regular maintenance, and an engine always operating at 80% to get itself going is asking for trouble. Am I just the product of the 60’s and 70’s education, or are my fears realistic? How many Taurii or Focii with Ecoboost are out there with high miles? Somebody here must have an inkling.
I wasn’t very impressed with the 1.6EB in a rental Fusion SE I had as a rental, the powertrain took away from an otherwise refined-driving car. To get up to speed in a reasonable fashion, the engine would rev up to 3500-4000 rpm, and was rather coarse in doing so. In an equivalent Camry with the plain jane 2.5L, the same rate of acceleration seems to be accomplished with much less fuss. A factor here is also the Fusion’s higher curb weight so I guess it’s not strictly a comparison of powertrains if the Ford engine had to work harder and pull more weight around. Likewise, I barely clipped 30 mpg with some very relaxed 70-72 mph highway cruising in the Ford. A good 4mpg less than what the Camry would do in the same setting.
We’ll see how Honda does with their 1.5T in the new Civic, apparently the 1.5T+CVT combo is surprisingly quick.
I’m with you. The 1.5T/1.6T doesn’t give any MPG benefit over the 2.5L in the CD3 Fusion, or the current base Fusion. I think Ford needs a 1.8T in the US.
You won’t find too many because Ford didn’t start going full Ecoboost until about 2011-2012. There are plenty of F150s with the 3.5TT over 150K miles. The earliest ones were sold in 2010. My MkT is one of the older 3.5TT Ford vehicles. It has 75K miles on it an seems to be doing fine. I won’t keep it to 150K miles because my wife doesn’t drive enough to get to that mileage. I’d have to own it for 7 more years.
I guess they didn’t have time to remove those Pep Boys-esque plastic “vents” on the fenders.
Pretty sure all Fords have those as part of their current design language.
I could take or leave it, but at least it’s distinguishing in a segment of pretty bland looking vehicles.
I can’t understand why the Escape sells ten times the volume as the Ford C-Max. Similarly equipped, the cars cost virtually the same, and have the same interior room. The C-Max has virtually the same performance as the turbo 1.6 (now 1.5) Escape. The Escape has more cargo room and available AWD, but the C-Max gets almost double the Escape’s city MPG, and beats it by about 10 MPG on the highway.
The C-Max is a hatchback, rather than a CUV. This makes it uncool. It is not available with AWD.
It’s also fairly hideous with the vast grille selection available on the front end.
I think it needs a third grille. More is better?
Actually, the new Euro C-Max grille is much better.
I propose they add the grille from the ECOSport India market vehicle to the hood of the C-Max, for extra grille.
The C-Max is actually priced better based on options at the SE level. The 203A package, which we both have on our C-Maxes, is about the best value Ford has on the lot. Alas, it is a hybrid and not a CUV.
See Explorer and Flex for another example of Ford’s “Why do people buy that when the same company makes this?” showroom of fun.
I looked at both the C-Max and the Escape, and ended up buying an Escape. I wanted to like the C-max more than I did, but the lack of a spare tire and the tiny cargo area kind of killed the C-Max from consideration. I also like being able to tow a small utility trailer: it beats having a pickup truck for me.
In your case, the Escape is better. Because I don’t take the C-Max on long road trips and I have another vehicle that tows, those things weren’t a high priority for me.
Yeah, that pretty much nails it. If I didn’t still do a lot of longer trips, or didn’t tow,the C-Max would have been a much more attractive vehicle.
I do have to say, though, that the C-Max suffers for not being designed as a hybrid from the beginning. Too much cargo space is taken up by the battery pack. If Toyota can design around that (i.e. the Prius V), so can Ford.
Well Ford can, and they will on their next Prius fighter thing. The C-Max wasn’t originally designed as a hybrid, so they just slapped the battery back there. Originally it was going to be traditionally powered for the US, and we were going to get the bigger Grand C-Max. But noooooooooo. We get the C-Max Hybrid/Plug-in and the Transit Connect Wagon.
Aesthetics?
I’ve never really liked how the C-Max looks, as useful as it is in some ways.
Also, not everyone wants a hybrid – and some people want AWD, or light towing, or more seats-up cargo.
(I mean, I’m not in the market for either, but those are the obvious reasons someone *might* prefer the Escape.)
If Ford offered an Escape Hybrid with similar specs to the C-Max, they’d sell more of those than the C-Max. People like the way the Escape looks. The C-Max was built because no one thought gas would drop so low, and Ford needed it in order to get the ATVM loans for retooling Wayne Assembly.
@ bball40dtw, I agree with you. I understand why people like the Explorer and Escape, I just don’t understand why the proportions are so much higher over the C-Max and the Flex. I don’t think Ford could make an Escape with the specs of the C-Max. If Ford made a hybrid Escape now, the specs would look closer to the 2010 Escape Hybrid than the C-Max. You’d have a 30-32 MPG car rather than a 40-42 MPG car. If you use Ford’s current hybrid drivetrain, the hybrid Escape would also be slower. The reality is that with fuel under $2.00/gallon hybrids will be niche vehicles.
I shouldn’t have said same specs. If they got close. It doesn’t matter, because like you said, with gas prices so low, it doesn’t matter.
Seating height, people. That’s probably the number one reason people purchase more compact CUV’s than similarly priced mid-sized sedans.
I am so glad that they didn’t make it look like a Fusion, seems that the grey bars with the chrome inserts from the Taurus rule the day.
Is anyone able to Photoshop the Taurus police grill in there?
Hopefully the base model also ditched those cheap ass looking bright orange front turn signals.
Amber lights on Escape make me mad.
Ah yes, the amber lights of shame!
2.0 turbo will be silly quick. Debadge, tint Windows, sleeper…
Its a sleeper alright…when I look at it, it induces drowsiness that only NyQuil can bring. ZzzzZzzzz
Too bad you can only get the 2.5L non turbo in the base ‘S’ trim package. Will Ford change that for the 2017 model? It would be nice to get it in the SE.
The change from 1.6 to 1.5 isn’t due to problems with the 1.6. In China there are higher taxes on engines over 1.5 liter in displacement. That is why all the makers are moving to a 1.5 liter 4-banger under their hoods.
Bertel is weeping somewhere right now.
I was gonna say, what exactly is 100cc less displacement gonna fix?
Well we are not China and offer the base and better 2.5 and 2.0 EB. The 1.5/1.6 are not even necessary in these vehicles. The base 2.5 could so easily be upgraded to the power levels Mazda gets from it and not only would mileage be equal or better but it would be simpler and longer lasting and work far better in every day driving. Ford is all gung-ho on the EB name and is deliberately holding back the 2.5/3.5 and 3.7 engines to try and male the EB engine options look better than they really are. In the case of the 1.5/1.6 motors they do not perform all that well on the mileage or performance front and the 1.6 has had it’s fair share of problems.
The 3.5 and 3.7 are not long for this world. They will eventually be replaced by the 2.3T/2.7TT/3.0TT combo. The MKZ is dropping the 3.7 in favor of the 400 HP 3.0TT.
I think Ford needs a 1.8T I4. I like it VWs 1.8T and I think it gets better mileage than the try hard 1.5T (in comparative midsized cars). A 1.8T would be nice in the Escape, Fusion, and Focus.
I wondered how long it would take to give the Escape the Ford corporate face. I like it.
Time to drag out my favorite Escape joke: Ford wanted to get rid of the Bronco’s association with OJ Simpson, so they discontinued that model and brought out the Escape.
That joke was funnier on Arrested Development in 2005.
Exactly right. We even talked about it last week, with video clip.