2007 Ford Escape ... worth buying?

Currently I'm in the market for a new vehicle, and after my years of driving a Ford Escort GT, I've decided to stick with the Ford brand!!
So I've been looking really closely at the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid and
was wondering if anyone here has one and if they had any insight on it for me? I love driving it when I took it for a test drive the other day, but just curious about what current owners think.
One thing that has tempted me on buying the Escape is the gas mileage ...
City MPG: 36 Highway MPG: 31 Combined MPG: 34
At least that's according to a website I found (http:// www.mpgbuddy.com/vehicle-profile/25848/2007-ford-escape-hybrid-fwd.html) ... but can anyone confirm they are getting about the same mileage on theirs?
Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can also check fueleconomy.gov; they now have real-world feedback from car owners. Also look at truedelta.com (registering allows you to see more but does not seem to increase spam) for real-world figures. I'm not sure if they have entries specifically for the hybrid Escape but it's as easy for you to check as it is for me.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DH wrote:

where in hell did you get those MPG ratings...
theres 2 motors 2.3 & 3.0 21/24 mpg city/highway 2.3auto 22/27 c/h 2.3 5spd 19/23 c/h 3.0 auto
theres no way youd get 36 or even 31 in that thing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe someone tows him uphill?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He was referring specifically to the Escape hybrid, which does get 36/31 in EPA tests:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/ford/escapehybrid/100726884/specs.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's how Toyota HYBRIDs do it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are four engine/transmission combinations, not three.
3.0-auto, 2.3-manual, 2.3-auto and 2.3-auto-variable
There would also be FWD verses AWD, seven in all. You chose the lower AWD rating for your list.
http://autos.yahoo.com/ford /;_yltGDJVYeTjJGb44AKB8PjL8F;_ylv=3 2.3M-FWD    24/29 2.3A-FWD    23/26
2.3A-AWD    21/24
3.0A-FWD    20/24 3.0A-AWD    19/23
2.3V-FWD    36/31 2.3V-AWD    32/29
The full 2008 guide isn't available yet, but you can look at the 2007 guide, updated 4/4/2007: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm
FORD Escape FWD ...... A-4 ..... 2.3/4 ....23/26 ...$1,658 ................. M-5 ..... 2.3/4 ....24/29 ...$1,530 ................. A-4 ..... 3.0/6 ....20/24 ...$1,809 Escape Hybrid FWD AV ...... 2.3/4 ... 36/31 ...$1,169
Escape 4WD ...... A-4 ..... 2.3/4 ....21/24 ...$1,809 ................. M-5 ..... 2.3/4 ....22/27 ...$1,658 ................. A-4 ..... 3.0/6 ....19/23 ...$1,892 Escape Hybrid 4WD AV ...... 2.3/4 ....32/29 ...$1,284
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The auto-variable is probably a continuously variable transmission, which is different from an automatic transmission.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

There are some dedicated yahoo groups, and various forums.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?13@@.ef0f4df http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hybrid_ford_escape/messages/10326 http://www.cleanmpg.com/ http://www.greenhybrid.com/ http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ford-escape-hybrid-f2.html

http://www.connpost.com/ci_5751985 http://www.hybridcars.com/fleets/hybrid-taxicabs.html http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/20/004462.html
I have a 2005 FEH 4WD with 40,000 miles. I would say that real world mileage is 38/31/28. 38 in heavy stop and go, 31 at 70mph on a long freeway trip with four people, 28 overall around here, which is fairly hilly with no freeways.
I am disappointed that Ford doesn't offer the Hybrid Fusion that was rumored a while ago, or maybe a Hybrid Focus, but Ford probably wants to avoid going head to head with Prius.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We just bought the 2008 Escape Hybrid. Only had it for a single tank of gas, but love it.
The first tank averaged 28 mpg according to the on board computer.
The wife drives it, but I have found that it takes a bit of getting used to if you want to realize the highest mpg. You need to re-learn all the tips we were given long ago about driving. Jackrabbit starts will cost you mpg. If you are driving in a 25 mph area, keep it under 29 and start slow and it will run on totally electric. That is the key, to use it as much as possible.
It shuts off the engine while you idle so that saves a bit. If you are in traffic you could easily drive miles on electric. I would bet you could drive an hour in traffic and use almost no gas.
It's a fabulous car, very roomy and comfortable.
This is step one in a long journey to a safer planet. I am looking at solar for the home now and am hoping my next car will be electric or alternative fuel. Chevy, please produce the Volt, that thing looks great.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have seen some very "optimistic" gauges, but my Escape is exactly right, matching calculations to the displayed MPG.

Regeneration is a major energy savings. The Escape uses the brakes so seldom that you can touch the disc rotors after normal driving. Driving around at low speeds, you can tell when the brakes engage. Yes, you used gas to get to the top of the hill, but that was gas that would be spent in any car. Coming down the hill, you have the choice of throwing that energy away in the form of heat and brake dust, or capturing some of it in a battery for later use.

Without seeing any accounting, that would be a guess, then, based on your presumption that there is no free lunch.

Except for regeneration, capturing energy that would have to come from additional fuel otherwise. Idle-stop avoids the use of some fuel.

Not free, but purportedly cheaper, environmentally speaking.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Brake dust is not a form of energy! Unless you use an atomic reactor that uses brake dust as a fuel.
It is an energy *savings* as you state. Clearly, converting the kinetic energy to heat and electricity, which is converted back to electricity and heat, and then kinetic energy and heat energy (and then the rest of the kinetic energy becomes heat energy) uses less energy than converting the kinetic energy directly to heat energy, but there is energy lost in the process to heat.
In other words, there are a lot of energy conversions when the kinetic energy of the truck is converted to chemical energy in the battery and back. During these conversions, some of the energy is lost as heat.
It's a good option, but the option is not necessarily worth the cost of making the batteries and other parts.

How could there not be a free lunch? The batteriers are made with nickel that is mined in Canada, shipped to China where the batteries made and then shipped back to the US to be used in the trucks. Ships don't run directly on sunlight. Nor does the mining equipment or the equipment used to make batteries.

And require the use of other fuel to make the batteries.

Purportedly, by whom?
Ford?
I think hybrids are an excellent idea. However, I don't know that they are a net benefit to the environment, at least not yet.
But you have to look at all the costs. Look at ethanol. Until recently, it took more energy to make ethanol from corn than they saved. And even now, it is about break even.
I am not against hybrids. But I don't know if they are better for the environment than what they replace.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The brake dust is another waste product avoided by using regeneration.

And some of it is stored for use later.

That would be the accounting that you haven't seen. Part of the phantom loss is couched in the belief that each hybrid is sold at less than cost by the manufacturer. Toyota declares that is not true, that they make a profit on every one.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see that you used the intellectually dishonest method of editing the previous posts by deleting importants parts with indicating that fact.
The poster, to whom I was replying, said, in part: " Coming down the hill, you have the choice of throwing that energy away in the form of heat and brake dust, or capturing some of it in a battery for later use."

Again, you were intellectually dishonest in the way you edited what was said. You removed the part that showed I was talking about the environmental costs, not the economic costs.
Does that mean that if ExxonMobil makes a profit on every gallon of gas, that using gas is good for the environment?
If you want to make an intelligent choice about where a hybrid or conventional car is a better choice for the environment, you need to look at all the environmental costs of building the car, including the environmental costs of building and disposing of the hybrid system compared to a conventional car.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am that previous poster. I was rephrasing my thoughts. It is unfortunate if you infer dishonorable intent.

It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to environmental costs in that statement. I didn't realize that you were ignoring the economics.

I see by continuation that you are referring only to environmental costs, and not the dollar costs. I have tended to blend those two.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the future, I recommend putting <...> or something to indicate that stuff was removed.
From where I was sitting, important details were removed, which changed the conversion.

OK, NP.

OK. NP.
I was talking about environmental costs.
As far as I can tell, financially, it comes out about even for the hybrid, particularly with the lifetime of the batteries and hybrid system and the cost of fuel in the future being unknown.
Personally, I don't car that much if Toyota or Ford is making money off a particular purchase. I understand why you included that. In the end, I think it is going to help Toyota beyound current profits, both because it improves Toyota's image as making fuel efficent cars as well as giving Toyota more options for the future.
Unfortunately, too many companies are too worried about the present quarter and not paying enough to the financial results of the future.
Jeff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I usually put ... in between sets of quoted lines if I don't interject something. The casual reader, even of this post without the others, should be able to tell that the content has been trimmed.

I think an odd part of the financial surveys that I've seen in the press is the low average mileage used. If your fuel bill is meager, it makes no sense to invest in a higher MPG vehicle. The studies tend to stay around some mysterious average annual mileage that is also the cap on some low cost lease deals.
I would personally call the financial breakeven on a Honda Civic Hybrid 70,000 miles in three years. If it takes longer than three years to drive 70,000 miles, I don't have a good projection. If it takes less than three years to reach 70,000 miles, it suggests more highway miles, where a hybrid does not stand out amongst economy cars. My mix of driving has been well served by my hybrid. The hybrid also makes it viable for me to have a smaller vehicle. I would not enjoy owning a normal Honda Civic, but the HCH is a nice car.
The increases in gas prices make it seem better and better. I don't think the cost of fuel in the future is unknown. The lifetime of the batteries is becoming known, as more of the hybrids exceed 200,000 miles.
In states with the California version of the Escape, the "hybrid exclusive" parts including the transmission, are warranted for 15 years/150,000 miles. The battery is 10/150K.

That would allow for the argument that Toyota is losing money on the Prius, but using it to balance their CAFE. That could be true of Ford, but I don't think Toyota, and certainly not Honda, are losing money on hybrids to inflate their CAFE.

Plug in hybrids would be a small technological step once batteries become available. The existing platform might be examining market acceptance as well as providing real world trials of most of the technology.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.