New Ford Escape...1.0 liter...really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've rented a number of Ford cars with the 1.0L 3 cylinder. None of them are particularly fast, guessing 10 seconds 0-60. They seem to do well on fuel, and I do like the sound.

Although, I probably would not purchase one, as I like a bit more power.
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
An escape is a car. It's not some heavy duty tow mobile.


Nor
Does it come equipped from the factory with a 1.0L
3 cylinder engine
 
Sales of the new Escape are going to nose dive IMHO-and it just isn't the motor size that is the issue.......
 
The 1.0 works great in my Fiesta. It is quick enough to be fun, sounds way better than a 4 cylinder, and can regularly beat the EPA highway rating of 41 MPG.
In a larger vehicle hooked to an automatic, I imagine it is significantly less impressive.
 
Ford doesn't offer the 1.0 Ecoboost in the 2020 Escape.
The engine offerings are the 2.5 Atkinson Hybrid, The 1.5 Ecoboost 3 cylinder (Dragon) and the 2.0 Ecoboost in the Titanium.
 
Originally Posted by atikovi
Can't be any worse than a 2.7L in a 5,500 pound F150.

While we all now understand something is wrong with this post (the 1.0 engine is not available in the Escape) I must say the 1.0 in an EcoSport is probably better than the 2.5 in my Escape. It's slow, unrefined, and sounds lame.
 
I have the 1.0 Turbo (and 6-speed Manual) in my 2015 Focus. Plenty quick with the manual trans when you can rev it. 2nd gear is excellent around town when you're under 45 MPH or so.

It's been flawless since new - currently at 87,000 miles. 53 MPG is my best tank on 55-60 MPH highways.

It was also the lightest 3rd Gen Focus (2,899 lbs) so the handling is excellent.

Also, there's absolutely no more vibration than any 4 or 6 cylinder car I've owned or driven. FAR smoother and more refined than the 2018 Corolla I rented a couple years ago.
 
swept volume and torque curve shold never be confused for each other. If 1.0 is too small, how about an emissions era 5.0 V8 with 185hp?? It's not about swept volume, its about torque curve and gear ratios.
 
Originally Posted by Olas
swept volume and torque curve should never be confused for each other. If 1.0 is too small, how about an emissions era 5.0 V8 with 185hp?? It's not about swept volume, its about torque curve and gear ratios.


That's largely correct. The old saying of "there is no substitute for cubic inches" is an absurdity today. Turbocharging when done correctly often makes for a better vehicle. (as you might have guessed, I'm a huge fan) . So much so that nearly every vehicle I've owned in the last 30 years have been turbocharged. I even owned an XN-85 Suzuki motorcycle.

Funny though, I'm actually considering a C7 Corvette.
 
I will see the vehicle again this morning, maybe it is an Eco Sport...I do know it had a 3 cylinder engine though...
 
It is an Eco Sport. To be honest, I thought that was a trim level for the Escape...didn't know it was a different model...I'm so out of the loop on new vehicles...still seems like a lot of vehicle for a 1.0 liter engine, even one that has a turbo, but the owner actually says it's pretty peppy...
 
Small engines with small turbos seem peppy since they have a good amount of torque at low rpm's. The 1.0 is only offered on the fwd ecosport so it's really not that heavy of a vehicle.
 
Originally Posted by E365
I have the 1.0 Turbo (and 6-speed Manual) in my 2015 Focus. Plenty quick with the manual trans when you can rev it. 2nd gear is excellent around town when you're under 45 MPH or so.

It's been flawless since new - currently at 87,000 miles. 53 MPG is my best tank on 55-60 MPH highways.

It was also the lightest 3rd Gen Focus (2,899 lbs) so the handling is excellent.

Also, there's absolutely no more vibration than any 4 or 6 cylinder car I've owned or driven. FAR smoother and more refined than the 2018 Corolla I rented a couple years ago.


I think it feels and sounds like a little V6. Much better than most 4 cylinders. My best MPG in my Fiesta was 47 MPG on a 2000+ mile trip up and dowm the east coast. The best part is that I wasn't even trying for MPG.
 
Originally Posted by grampi
It is an Eco Sport. To be honest, I thought that was a trim level for the Escape...didn't know it was a different model...I'm so out of the loop on new vehicles...still seems like a lot of vehicle for a 1.0 liter engine, even one that has a turbo, but the owner actually says it's pretty peppy...

I'm still confused why you thought it was a "huge vehicle." Maybe compared to a Smart or a Yugo.
smile.gif
 
My 1979 Monte Carlo with the 267 v-8 (approx 4.4 liter) put out 125-hp of smog system choked crappiness. 3200 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 14 seconds and average 19 mpg.
And if you were lucky you'd make it to 80000 miles before it self destructed or evaporated into a pile of rust.

A 1.0 Ecosport makes 123-hp, 3150 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 10.6 seconds and an average of 28 mpg combined.

Neither of these vehicles is stellar but one is definitely a turd and it's the one with the larger swept displacement. I myself wouldn't buy an Ecosport because it doesn't fit my lifestyle. But given the choice I'd pick that 1.0 liter easily if we are simply having a swept displacement conversation. It's not great, but its also just not that bad.
 
Originally Posted by Imp4
My 1979 Monte Carlo with the 267 v-8 (approx 4.4 liter) put out 125-hp of smog system choked crappiness. 3200 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 14 seconds and average 19 mpg.



Ha, that was a true low point and a fine example of it. Of course, about that time work started on far more powerful and modern designs. I was working for a company that assembled and tested engines (specifically emission compliant camshaft design and roller followers) , one of which found it's way into the 205HP Mustang SVO. Even back then, it was clear that turbocharging was a winning design.

Of possible interest, the 2.3L 2 valve turbo engine that I worked on was capable of about 300HP with the production installed components, when optimized. Put another way, about 130HP per liter. Not far off the 1.0 Ecoboost's output of 123HP/L


Originally Posted by Imp4

A 1.0 Ecosport makes 123-hp, 3150 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 10.6 seconds and an average of 28 mpg combined.


However, today's vehicles perform very well. You would have to look long and hard to find a slower new car than the 1.0 ecosport.
 
Last edited:
I can remember when I test drove a new 1983 Ford Tempo. I thought something was wrong with it because it was so slow accelerating. I had a 1970 Camaro at the time but it was just a 307 automatic.
 
A family member picked up an EcoSport. Nice station wagon with ground clearance. Works very well for them. The 1.0 is fine for that car if you like cruising around efficiently. 11.5 0-60 doesn't matter because you're not the type to wind it up anyway...
 
Originally Posted by Silverado12
I can remember when I test drove a new 1983 Ford Tempo. I thought something was wrong with it because it was so slow accelerating. I had a 1970 Camaro at the time but it was just a 307 automatic.


So slow that you thought there was something wrong with it?
A four cylinder Tempo is a rocket as compared to a 240D, of which we had two.
Not too bad once you got used to it and knew what to expect.
On the interstate, you just planted your right foot and speed would vary with grade but would rarely get into seriously illegal territory.
OTOH, an MB 123 blew away anything American or Japanese in ride and handling, so the cars did have their advantages.
In the case in question, the Ecosport looks like a juvenile version of the Escape, very much as a six month old puppy looks as compared to the adult dog.
It is not overly powerful by current standards but the little turbo engine apparently gives enough grunt, although fuel economy seems a little dissapointing as compared to an NA Subaru with another 50+ bhp, but then one would pay a good bit more for the Forester.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top