Hey guys. Me and my wife are looking for a new cuv to replace her dart. We really like the 2016 mazda cx5 and under stand that the 2.5 skyactive engine has been shown to be very reliable along with its transmission. I have been avoiding looking at any turbocharged vehicals because I do not believe they are as reliable as N/A engines. Recently I was looking through a ford dealership and saw a 2016 ford escape titanium with the new 2.0 ecoboost, it was very stylish and priced about the same as the mazda. We test drove it and was very impressed with the handleing and the build quality. Now I have have never owned a ford or a turbocharged car and because of this I ask, Are they reliable?
2015/2016 ford escape 2.0. Is it reliable?
- Thread starter moparguy19
- Start date
- Status
I am in the same shopping situation. The Ford ecos do not return anywhere near what the window sticker says on fuel economy. So far, so good on the 2.0T engine, but reliability past 5 years is not known.
The Mazda oil change interval requirement is enough to sway me away from that brand at minimum 3x per year.
The CRV is a great design but research "2015 CRV vibration problem at idle" that's enough to make me go elsewhere.
Nissan Rogue and CVT = meh...
The last candidate I have is the RAV4. It will have a refresh for 2016, with 10,000 mile OCI with a proven 2.5L and 6-speed transmission. Seems to be a finalist in my books.
Either get a great deal on a 2015 or a new refreshed XLE 2016.
My 2 cents.
The Mazda oil change interval requirement is enough to sway me away from that brand at minimum 3x per year.
The CRV is a great design but research "2015 CRV vibration problem at idle" that's enough to make me go elsewhere.
Nissan Rogue and CVT = meh...
The last candidate I have is the RAV4. It will have a refresh for 2016, with 10,000 mile OCI with a proven 2.5L and 6-speed transmission. Seems to be a finalist in my books.
Either get a great deal on a 2015 or a new refreshed XLE 2016.
My 2 cents.
Originally Posted By: moparguy19
Hey guys. Me and my wife are looking for a new cuv to replace her dart. We really like the 2016 mazda cx5 and under stand that the 2.5 skyactive engine has been shown to be very reliable along with its transmission. I have been avoiding looking at any turbocharged vehicals because I do not believe they are as reliable as N/A engines. Recently I was looking through a ford dealership and saw a 2016 ford escape titanium with the new 2.0 ecoboost, it was very stylish and priced about the same as the mazda. We test drove it and was very impressed with the handleing and the build quality. Now I have have never owned a ford or a turbocharged car and because of this I ask, Are they reliable?
Why not give it a shot? It comes new with a 5 year 60k mile warranty. If you start developing issues during that time you can always get rid of it.
Hey guys. Me and my wife are looking for a new cuv to replace her dart. We really like the 2016 mazda cx5 and under stand that the 2.5 skyactive engine has been shown to be very reliable along with its transmission. I have been avoiding looking at any turbocharged vehicals because I do not believe they are as reliable as N/A engines. Recently I was looking through a ford dealership and saw a 2016 ford escape titanium with the new 2.0 ecoboost, it was very stylish and priced about the same as the mazda. We test drove it and was very impressed with the handleing and the build quality. Now I have have never owned a ford or a turbocharged car and because of this I ask, Are they reliable?
Why not give it a shot? It comes new with a 5 year 60k mile warranty. If you start developing issues during that time you can always get rid of it.
My wife and I looked at all of those and ended up with an Outback, couldn't be happier so far. I like the CVT better than the geared trans. I didn't like a lot of the other CUV's because of how random the underhood looked. I loved how well laid out and open everything is on the Outback, I can actually change all the oils easily.
My dad bought a 2015 escape awd with the 2.0 EB. ( had to have those 2 options for the tow package), and so far, no issues. That being said, its still under 5k MI, and on the factory fill... Traded in a 2012 explorer with around 20k MI, simply because the explorer was too tall. He was having trouble getting in & out. But so far not disappointed with the pep, or the mpgs.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
If you already have it in your mind that turbos are less reliable than NA vehicles, i would stay away from any turbo. Reason being, any little thing that goes wrong, you will be questioning that purchase while saying to yourself, 'i knew i shouldn't have...' Whether it's warranted or not. Get what makes you happy and doesn't give you buyers remorse.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: moparguy19
HI have been avoiding looking at any turbocharged vehicals because I do not believe they are as reliable as N/A engines.
Funny that about the longest lived "vehicals" on the road are turbocharged diesels. I suspect you have very little to worry about if you drive smartly and do proper maintenance.
HI have been avoiding looking at any turbocharged vehicals because I do not believe they are as reliable as N/A engines.
Funny that about the longest lived "vehicals" on the road are turbocharged diesels. I suspect you have very little to worry about if you drive smartly and do proper maintenance.
I deal with Class 8 heavy duty highway tractors as part of my job. There is a reason leasing companies such as Penske or Ryder only want these on lease for 5 years or max 750k miles.
Because reliability plummets, turbos included.
I also have a great deal of experience running gasoline Ford trucks vs diesel. The repair costs on the gasoline non-turbo are 66% of the diesel turbos.
Because reliability plummets, turbos included.
I also have a great deal of experience running gasoline Ford trucks vs diesel. The repair costs on the gasoline non-turbo are 66% of the diesel turbos.
Originally Posted By: Danno
I deal with Class 8 heavy duty highway tractors as part of my job. There is a reason leasing companies such as Penske or Ryder only want these on lease for 5 years or max 750k miles.
Because reliability plummets, turbos included.
I also have a great deal of experience running gasoline Ford trucks vs diesel. The repair costs on the gasoline non-turbo are 66% of the diesel turbos.
This is a primary reason we do not use diesel in our fleet operations. The diesels simply require more servicing...
I deal with Class 8 heavy duty highway tractors as part of my job. There is a reason leasing companies such as Penske or Ryder only want these on lease for 5 years or max 750k miles.
Because reliability plummets, turbos included.
I also have a great deal of experience running gasoline Ford trucks vs diesel. The repair costs on the gasoline non-turbo are 66% of the diesel turbos.
This is a primary reason we do not use diesel in our fleet operations. The diesels simply require more servicing...
I believe the Escape's base engine is a 2.5 non-turbo. This is the same as the previous generation Mazda unit and is very reliable and durable. Having said that I would get the 2.0 turbo because turbo technology has matured to where reliability is not an issue.
I really like the Escape.
I really like the Escape.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Get the Mazda CX5. Mazda makes a great car. But then Ford and Mazda are related and share tech, so it kind of evens out.
My parents have a 2013 that just clicked over 40K miles. No problems with My Ford Touch (granted - those are more a problem with owners who aren't smart enough to operate a touch screen radio) or the turbo engine.
Only issue they had is my mom shut something in the hatch and broke one of the clips on the interior panel. Dealer fixed that one for free.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Get the Mazda CX5. Mazda makes a great car. But then Ford and Mazda are related and share tech, so it kind of evens out.
Not any more.
Only issue they had is my mom shut something in the hatch and broke one of the clips on the interior panel. Dealer fixed that one for free.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Get the Mazda CX5. Mazda makes a great car. But then Ford and Mazda are related and share tech, so it kind of evens out.
Not any more.
We have friends with a 2.0 Escape and they echo the fuel economy complaints: nowhere near the EPA estimates, even in steady-state highway cruising.
It was on our CUV list and was ultimately rejected because of fuel economy, rear seat room (try it out yourself) and an anemic roof rack that had a load limit of 45 pounds when equipped with a sunroof.
We bought a CRV instead and like it a lot. Fuel economy is better than EPA estimates so far, tons of room, good build quality, etc. A lot has been made about the vibration issue, but I think it's much overblown and Honda is working on a fix.
It was on our CUV list and was ultimately rejected because of fuel economy, rear seat room (try it out yourself) and an anemic roof rack that had a load limit of 45 pounds when equipped with a sunroof.
We bought a CRV instead and like it a lot. Fuel economy is better than EPA estimates so far, tons of room, good build quality, etc. A lot has been made about the vibration issue, but I think it's much overblown and Honda is working on a fix.
Get a GMC Terriain will blow the doors off that Ford Escape
Originally Posted By: Ram01
Get a GMC Terriain will blow the doors off that Ford Escape
+1 we looked at the Ford Escape and the terrain and the GMC was a better build quality, good MPGs and a very quiet ride. Cars.com gave it a high rating as well compared to other CUVs of it's class (CRV got #1 but they didn't like the CVT.) It also includes two years/24k worth of oil changes/tire rotations. My wife (primary driver of it) loves it.
Get a GMC Terriain will blow the doors off that Ford Escape
+1 we looked at the Ford Escape and the terrain and the GMC was a better build quality, good MPGs and a very quiet ride. Cars.com gave it a high rating as well compared to other CUVs of it's class (CRV got #1 but they didn't like the CVT.) It also includes two years/24k worth of oil changes/tire rotations. My wife (primary driver of it) loves it.
Don't see why not - been around since 2013 and no major issues. IIRC the 2.0T was used in Europe a few years earlier.
I'd go with the 16 - the new infotainment will be more reliable than the previous Microsoft based system as it's based off QNX which is a true embedded OS vs some hacked up version of the garbage known as Windows.
We're heading in that direction to replace the wife's 03 Escape and have no qualms about the reliability of the vehicle. It is a very well put together and well driving vehicle.
I'd go with the 16 - the new infotainment will be more reliable than the previous Microsoft based system as it's based off QNX which is a true embedded OS vs some hacked up version of the garbage known as Windows.
We're heading in that direction to replace the wife's 03 Escape and have no qualms about the reliability of the vehicle. It is a very well put together and well driving vehicle.
The Escape 2.0L EB is great. Keep it under 70 MPH and it easily exceeds EPA numbers. My dad has one and I get to drive it fairly regularly. No problem breaking 30 MPGs in that and it is super fun to drive.
Mazda is just as excellent, though. Mazda just doesn't have the HP the escape does. You can't go wrong with either one.
Mazda is just as excellent, though. Mazda just doesn't have the HP the escape does. You can't go wrong with either one.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
The Escape 2.0L EB is great. Keep it under 70 MPH and it easily exceeds EPA numbers. My dad has one and I get to drive it fairly regularly. No problem breaking 30 MPGs in that and it is super fun to drive.
Same. I have had it in mid 30s on 91 ethanol free gas.
Pretty crazy for something that is AWD and weighs nearly 4000 pounds
... and has > 250lb ft of torque ...
The Escape 2.0L EB is great. Keep it under 70 MPH and it easily exceeds EPA numbers. My dad has one and I get to drive it fairly regularly. No problem breaking 30 MPGs in that and it is super fun to drive.
Same. I have had it in mid 30s on 91 ethanol free gas.
Pretty crazy for something that is AWD and weighs nearly 4000 pounds
... and has > 250lb ft of torque ...
The 2.0 EB engine is in the Focus ST as well as the Escape. Both have been in the N.America market since 2013 and are powerhouses! When in the Escape with FWD, that thing darts through traffic like a scalded dog!
The 1.6 is too strained, esp when paired with AWD. I would not recommend it as it's noisier when pushed, than the 2.0. The 1.6 also had a recall early in their release for engine fires caused by excessive coolant temps. This was remedied by lowering the fan switch temp. Since then it's been OK
The 1.6 is too strained, esp when paired with AWD. I would not recommend it as it's noisier when pushed, than the 2.0. The 1.6 also had a recall early in their release for engine fires caused by excessive coolant temps. This was remedied by lowering the fan switch temp. Since then it's been OK
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
The 2.0 EB engine is in the Focus ST as well as the Escape. Both have been in the N.America market since 2013 and are powerhouses! When in the Escape with FWD, that thing darts through traffic like a scalded dog!
The 1.6 is too strained, esp when paired with AWD. I would not recommend it as it's noisier when pushed, than the 2.0. The 1.6 also had a recall early in their release for engine fires caused by excessive coolant temps. This was remedied by lowering the fan switch temp. Since then it's been OK
The 2.0 with AWD is also pretty quick. When my parents got theirs , my father and I were playing around with the G force sensors on it and looking at all the computer stuff. He had me punch it going 55 and we hit triple digits way quicker than we thought. I was expecting to only be going 70 or so and , nope, hit the century mark!
The 2.0 EB engine is in the Focus ST as well as the Escape. Both have been in the N.America market since 2013 and are powerhouses! When in the Escape with FWD, that thing darts through traffic like a scalded dog!
The 1.6 is too strained, esp when paired with AWD. I would not recommend it as it's noisier when pushed, than the 2.0. The 1.6 also had a recall early in their release for engine fires caused by excessive coolant temps. This was remedied by lowering the fan switch temp. Since then it's been OK
The 2.0 with AWD is also pretty quick. When my parents got theirs , my father and I were playing around with the G force sensors on it and looking at all the computer stuff. He had me punch it going 55 and we hit triple digits way quicker than we thought. I was expecting to only be going 70 or so and , nope, hit the century mark!
- Status
