Went to the Ford Dealer today to have a coolant flush on the wife's Focus and while I was waiting I wandered the lot looking @ new Fords. There was a really nice silver SE Escape 1.6L EcoBoost model for 22.4K. Great front seats. Seemed like a really nice ride. Popped open the hood to see what's what where. Noticed the oil filter on front of engine surrounded by hoses and other parts making it very difficult to replace. IMO what a STUPID location. Spoke to auto tech and he confirmed it is a pain to remove and oil drips on hoses. Really Ford....I like doing my own oil/filter changes. Crossed 1.6L Escape off my wish List. I really liked the way the Edge 3.5 looked from outside but didn't get a chance to sit inside nor look @ engine bay.
Bad oil filter location for '14 Escape 1.6 Eco
- Thread starter sparky123
- Start date
- Status
The 2.0 and 2.5 are in a reasonable location.
The 1.6 has it in a pretty bad location, I agree. You have to move AC lines out of the way, and it will dump oil on the AC lines. That , in combination with being a timing belt engine, pretty much eliminates me ever owning one.
The 1.6 has it in a pretty bad location, I agree. You have to move AC lines out of the way, and it will dump oil on the AC lines. That , in combination with being a timing belt engine, pretty much eliminates me ever owning one.
I am sure that you can find plenty of other cars with bad oil filter locations. My 1985 and 1995 Escorts had them in the back of the engine in a fairly bad spot as well.
sucks that they design the engine and then the vehicle instead of them going hand in hand to better arrange things.
I've seen a lot of terrible filter locations.
I've seen a lot of terrible filter locations.
The 1.6 is soon to be replaced by the 1.5,so it may soon be a moot issue.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
Originally Posted By: SF0059
The 1.6 is soon to be replaced by the 1.5,so it may soon be a moot issue.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
1.5 is same engine, just different displacement IIRC.
It's a minor frustration. Something like a timing belt is a completely unacceptable cost cutting measure and, for me, that is enough to deter me from buying a vehicle.
Besides ridiculously small cabin, timing belt was one of the deterrents from the 2011 Fiesta when I was buying a car 3 years ago.
The 1.6 is soon to be replaced by the 1.5,so it may soon be a moot issue.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
1.5 is same engine, just different displacement IIRC.
It's a minor frustration. Something like a timing belt is a completely unacceptable cost cutting measure and, for me, that is enough to deter me from buying a vehicle.
Besides ridiculously small cabin, timing belt was one of the deterrents from the 2011 Fiesta when I was buying a car 3 years ago.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: SF0059
The 1.6 is soon to be replaced by the 1.5,so it may soon be a moot issue.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
1.5 is same engine, just different displacement IIRC.
It's a minor frustration. Something like a timing belt is a completely unacceptable cost cutting measure and, for me, that is enough to deter me from buying a vehicle.
Besides ridiculously small cabin, timing belt was one of the deterrents from the 2011 Fiesta when I was buying a car 3 years ago.
I concur with your timing belt assessment.
Originally Posted By: SF0059
The 1.6 is soon to be replaced by the 1.5,so it may soon be a moot issue.
However, I don't think the oil filter location would deter me from buying a vehicle I liked.
1.5 is same engine, just different displacement IIRC.
It's a minor frustration. Something like a timing belt is a completely unacceptable cost cutting measure and, for me, that is enough to deter me from buying a vehicle.
Besides ridiculously small cabin, timing belt was one of the deterrents from the 2011 Fiesta when I was buying a car 3 years ago.
I concur with your timing belt assessment.
I didn't realize the 1.6 was a timing belt application.
Originally Posted By: Black_Thunder
sucks that they design the engine and then the vehicle instead of them going hand in hand to better arrange things.
I've seen a lot of terrible filter locations.
That is the problem with engine designing, they have to plug into multiple platforms and those are not always know or can be predicted before engine design.
An example was the old GM 2.2L inline 4 push rod engine. Transverse mounted on the old Cavaliers, the oil filter was wedged between the engine and firewall. On the S-10 pickups when the same engine was use in a traditional inline orientation, that same filter location was much more accessible on the RH side.
sucks that they design the engine and then the vehicle instead of them going hand in hand to better arrange things.
I've seen a lot of terrible filter locations.
That is the problem with engine designing, they have to plug into multiple platforms and those are not always know or can be predicted before engine design.
An example was the old GM 2.2L inline 4 push rod engine. Transverse mounted on the old Cavaliers, the oil filter was wedged between the engine and firewall. On the S-10 pickups when the same engine was use in a traditional inline orientation, that same filter location was much more accessible on the RH side.
Lots of ways to get an oil filter off. The Lisle 63600 and 63250 will pretty much get you in anywhere.
Originally Posted By: Red91
I didn't realize the 1.6 was a timing belt application.
Yeah. Disappointing
It's not just a downsized Duratec 20, 23, 25 like many people think (myself included). European engine.
I didn't realize the 1.6 was a timing belt application.
Yeah. Disappointing
It's not just a downsized Duratec 20, 23, 25 like many people think (myself included). European engine.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Lots of ways to get an oil filter off. The Lisle 63600 and 63250 will pretty much get you in anywhere.
It's not always a matter of getting it off. It's that it drips oil on everything in the process.
The 3.6 in my Traverse is not good either. I spend more time wiping oil off everything then what it takes to do the oil change.
Lots of ways to get an oil filter off. The Lisle 63600 and 63250 will pretty much get you in anywhere.
It's not always a matter of getting it off. It's that it drips oil on everything in the process.
The 3.6 in my Traverse is not good either. I spend more time wiping oil off everything then what it takes to do the oil change.
Originally Posted By: supton
What is the change interval? 100kmiles? How often will the typical owner have to change the belt?
150K. Still unacceptable for something that is lifetime on many other vehicles.
What is the change interval? 100kmiles? How often will the typical owner have to change the belt?
150K. Still unacceptable for something that is lifetime on many other vehicles.
150k used to be lifetime. I wonder how long it really lasts. I mean, let's say 90% of them could make it to 200k, assuming the miles were racked up at a typical rate (not 10k/year, so rule out dry rot).
I bet if one were to skip it'd be good for the lifetime though! Well, if it was an interference motor that is.
I'm still partial to timing belts, a mile long timing chain has thousands(?) of wear points, plus whatever tensioners/guides/whatever which has worn out on various motors. A timing belt motor ought to be set up for easy(?) replacement. Some are. Some, so-so; but what's 4 hours of labor every 100-150k?
I bet if one were to skip it'd be good for the lifetime though! Well, if it was an interference motor that is.
I'm still partial to timing belts, a mile long timing chain has thousands(?) of wear points, plus whatever tensioners/guides/whatever which has worn out on various motors. A timing belt motor ought to be set up for easy(?) replacement. Some are. Some, so-so; but what's 4 hours of labor every 100-150k?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: grampi
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
It has a turbo.
1.6L EcoBoost®
1.6L Ti-VCT GTDI I-4
178HP @ 5700
184ft-lbs @ 2500
10.1:1
The 2.0L makes a lot more power, but the 1.6 isn't awful. The old Explorer 4.0L OHV in the late 90's was like 150HP.
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
It has a turbo.
1.6L EcoBoost®
1.6L Ti-VCT GTDI I-4
178HP @ 5700
184ft-lbs @ 2500
10.1:1
The 2.0L makes a lot more power, but the 1.6 isn't awful. The old Explorer 4.0L OHV in the late 90's was like 150HP.
Originally Posted By: grampi
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
You just lost whatever you bet.
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
You just lost whatever you bet.
This has been discussed before and someone posted a video about it on youtube. One of the worries is that some oil technicians may be lazy and NOT CHANGE THE FILTER AT ALL!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2p9oHcOxKQ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
It has a turbo.
1.6L EcoBoost®
1.6L Ti-VCT GTDI I-4
178HP @ 5700
184ft-lbs @ 2500
10.1:1
The 2.0L makes a lot more power, but the 1.6 isn't awful. The old Explorer 4.0L OHV in the late 90's was like 150HP.
The thing about the 1.6L is that Ford is using it to advertise high MPG claims. The problem is, the MPG dies with these engines if you do not drive this car like a grandma because the turbo eats up gas. Light, long, and smooth acceleration and lots of highway driving keep the MPGs near the claimed value, but city/stop and go driving kills the claims even the advertised city mpg dies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2p9oHcOxKQ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi
1.6 seems like an awfully small engine for an Escape...I bet it's a dog...and a timing belt in this day and age? I thought every make had gone back to timing chains? Come on Ford, get with the program!
It has a turbo.
1.6L EcoBoost®
1.6L Ti-VCT GTDI I-4
178HP @ 5700
184ft-lbs @ 2500
10.1:1
The 2.0L makes a lot more power, but the 1.6 isn't awful. The old Explorer 4.0L OHV in the late 90's was like 150HP.
The thing about the 1.6L is that Ford is using it to advertise high MPG claims. The problem is, the MPG dies with these engines if you do not drive this car like a grandma because the turbo eats up gas. Light, long, and smooth acceleration and lots of highway driving keep the MPGs near the claimed value, but city/stop and go driving kills the claims even the advertised city mpg dies.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
