The 2013 Ford Escape is set to bow at the Los Angeles Auto Show next month, but we don't have to wait several weeks for engine options. The Ford Story (a Ford-run blog) reports that the next Escape (Ford Vertrek concept from 2011 Detroit Auto Show shown above) will feature three four-cylinder engine options, with two of those four-pots being of the turbocharged kind.

The base engine will be the carryover 2.5-liter four-cylinder model, but the two EcoBoost mills will likely garner the most attention. The turbocharged 1.6-liter model, which is already a big success in Europe, will fill out the middle of the range. With the EcoBoost 1.6 under the hood, the 2013 Escape will best the current Escape Hybrid's 31 highway miles per gallon, while still producing up to 180 horsepower. That couldn't come as much of a surprise, since even the larger and more powerful 2.0-liter EcoBoost manages 30 mpg highway under the hood of the much heavier Ford Edge.

Speaking of the 2.0-liter EcoBoost, you can expect this 247-horsepower mill at the top of the 2013 Escape food chain. With all that horsepower and usable (275 pound-feet) torque, we're guessing Escape buyers won't miss the 3.0-liter V6 and it's measly 223 lb-ft one bit. And like we said, if the Edge can manage 30 mpg, we're guessing that engineers can eek out a bit more efficiency under the hood of the next Escape.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 109 Comments
      Old Timer
      • 3 Years Ago
      I like the looks, but I don't think it's going to be as successful as the outgoing model. A lot of people buy Escapes because they look like an old fashioned SUV that's been left in the dryer too long. With the new styling people can't fool themselves in to thinking that they're buying an SUV anymore. That old square shape is also very practical when it comes to loading it full of stuff. This is one time Ford might have been better served by more conservative styling.
        Randy
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Old Timer
        I sometimes wonder where people get their information? Who are the "a lot of people". Not me! I like the new one better. You want old and dated looks then by a subaru. Good cars nonetheless, just dated looking!
        brunswick90210
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Old Timer
        The change in form of the Escape is not just for looks, it also has to deal with efficiency. The new curvier shape of the Escape means less drag coefficient. This in turn will produce an increase in the MPGs ,which if you haven't been listening is the biggest importance of cars nowadays. Especially with those new CAFE regulations.
      jbm0866
      • 3 Years Ago
      I like it, but when I look at the pics I can't help but see a stretched Focus hatchback with a lift kit and giant wheels..
      wafflesnfalafel
      • 3 Years Ago
      Not bad - personally, I'd rather have one of the Focus STs with that hot 2.0 liter turbo motor. I think "Old Timer" is right about the looks - there are a lot of folks who like the current model because it is a bit more "trucky". It's also just the right size and if you get the 2.5 liter 4 with the 6 speed auto then mileage is already better than most of the competition, (are you listening Subie Forester?) This new model looks like it might be a bit tighter on the inside too.
        Brandon Allen
        • 3 Years Ago
        @wafflesnfalafel
        This is funny, my wife drives a 2008 Ford Escape and I drive a 2005 Subaru WRX. The 08 Escape is great, I like the looks, utility and it has just enough power with the old base 2.3L 175hp I4. In 09, they upped to a 6 speed automatic which made a big difference in mileage, I wish I had that model year. Regardless, I do really like the concept styling above but I don't think it's appropriate as a replacement for the Escape. Not only is the current Escape giant in comparison to most of the other small SUV's in the category, it's also quite a bit lighter, even lighter than my WRX, for example. Updating the styling almost certainly means making this vehicle smaller or at least, minimizing the use of it's interior cargo space. The boxy look of the current Escape translates to flat, open storage that's easy to pack. There are some quirks with metal brackets and hinges for the back seats sticking into the cargo area but it's an incredibly spacious car. I'd rather see a slight exterior redesign with a more complete interior update for the next gen than trying to make it look like a jacked up Ford Focus. Just put the EcoBoost engines in there and I'd trade up to it in an instant.
      lorenzo
      • 3 Years Ago
      keyless entry no doubt......
      Bill
      • 3 Years Ago
      Is it much taller than the focus?
      lasertekk
      • 3 Years Ago
      Who would have thought? Downsizing and continued levels of performance at the same time
      buckfeverjohnson
      • 3 Years Ago
      Long overdue. I've been eyeing the Kia Sportage Turbo SX for wifey, but I might try to wait for this Veratrek turbo.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Adrian
        • 3 Years Ago
        Do you live simply to troll this forum? I seriously question if this is all you look forward to in a day.
        Dean Hammond
        • 3 Years Ago
        specific examples of documented failures please......
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          [blocked]
        Dean Hammond
        • 3 Years Ago
        SECURITY....ones escaped....
        the_zachalope
        • 3 Years Ago
        I don't think the 475,000 miles on the original transmission of my Escape was ever rebuilt. Hell, I dont' think ANYTHING on it was rebuilt.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Justin Campanale
        • 3 Years Ago
        WE GET IT, MATT! You don't like Ford. Do you have to continuosly bash them in every damn comment you make?
          AcidTonic
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          @Dean, don't lump me in with the trolls, I'm just the spoiled AWD Zealot. I don't bash just to bash like these other idiots.
          Dean Hammond
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          yes he does...countdown to fried Rice, Tom Cottage and Acid......
          Dean Hammond
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          Acid, then all you have to do is refrain from bleating that every single vehicle isnt 400hp, manual trans and AWD...oh, and has limited slip in the front....
        Justin Campanale
        • 3 Years Ago
        and just btw,the 1.6 turbo will have more power than any of its competitors sans the Tiguan. How many logins do you have anyway? How many times have you been banned from AB and then made a new login? I would call you a troll, but that would be an insult to real trolls. At least REAL trolls like Fried_Rice, vwfailsagain/mexicanjetta (same person) and Laser come up with new material once in a while. You, on the other hand, post the same damn thing every time, you just copy and paste, either from your earlier rants or from your comments on LeftLaneNews as "The Realist"
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          [blocked]
          Krishan Mistry
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          Fried_Rice is a real troll? Every ford article he comments on goes like this: "Another POS that will blow up after 20K like anything from Fix Or Repair Daily :) If you want a real car, get a (insert any and all the Japanese equivalents, even if it is universally known as craptacular)" That means he is even lazier than True Voice, and both are pathetic POS trolls.
          Tiberius1701
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Justin Campanale
          Maybe he was "Lemon" over at BlueOvalNews as well...he exhibits the sme characterisitcs, anyway.
        tagg8019
        • 3 Years Ago
        You delusions are scary and I am surpriesed they let you get on the Internet from your padded cell you sad little boy.
        Ryan
        • 3 Years Ago
        Again, completely unfounded and completely opinionated. "Oh once again folks, Ford goes backwards." Uh-huh there Mr. MBA, you nailed that one. Now i'll spout some garbage about gimmicky technology or underpowered vehicles i've never sat in or driven. Ford goes backwards. It baffles me to see how massively simple-minded some people are - i.e. YOU.
        • 3 Years Ago
        [blocked]
      dbunny
      • 3 Years Ago
      Am I the only one that cares about towing capacity? I would bet it won't pull more than 1500lbs without the old V6. Kinda gutless if true.
        Elmo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @dbunny
        You're looking at the wrong vehicle if you're looking at towing capacity of over 1500lbs.
          jtav2002
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Elmo
          Exactly. Plus We don't know for sure what it will be. You can't make the assumption based on engine alone since the 2.0T makes both more hp and torque than the current V6. Not realy sure how more power all around makes it gutless.
        lalasd
        • 3 Years Ago
        @dbunny
        With the turbo you will get more torque. This escape should be able to tow around 4000 pounds.
      Dean Hammond
      • 3 Years Ago
      transmissions?......wonder if they will retain a manual....with the 1.6 that could be a hoot.
      asdf
      • 3 Years Ago
      great, I suppose these will be the lame engine choices in the new fusion? I prefer a smooth V-6 btw, I've had too many rough(er) running, unreliable turbo 4s in my life.
        Dean Hammond
        • 3 Years Ago
        @asdf
        yup, 247 hp and flat torque curve and superior performance and mileage suck.....dependability isnt an issue an y more when it comes to turbos....
          AcidTonic
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Dean: did you know the 2.0 Turbo in the Evo back in 2003 yes 2003 had over 274 horsepower and people were modifying them back then to well over 400-600 horsepower? My completely stock 2006 Evo IX 2.0T is already beyond 400 horsepower with full-time AWD. Ford hasn't come close to building a car that sick, unless you count the AWD Turbo Fiesta they won't sell to the public. Ford is rather late to this game, with lower horsepower than the non DI engines of yesteryear. Whoop-dee-do about the turbo cooling, I just don't bash on my car right before shutting it off. A simple turbo timer works if you can't be trusted not to do that. Yeah it's gimmicky and cool like the shutting front vents on the Focus, but it's not a major buying position compared to other turbo cars.
          asdf
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          The 300hp/280tq DI V-6 in the Mustang manages to get that car 30 mpg. Why couldn't that engine go in there, perhaps slightly detuned? My 2007 subaru legacy has already had a new turbo on it at 40k miles and the plastic end tanks on the intercooler leak. Not uncommon for these cars. Whether its boost leaks or turbo failure from a part spinning at 100,000 rpm and getting red hot on a daily basis, turbo cars are less reliable.
          Dean Hammond
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          probably size and weight asdf....as for fords eco booset engines.....no failures to date, and the way they are designed is pretty trick, did you know after the engine is switched off gravity flows coolant through the turbos.....so coking is a non-issue...and just because your Subie has had issues doesnt mean everyone else will...dare I say Fords engineers may be superior?
          AcidTonic
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Dean, Yeah I'm sure the torque curves are just horrible. 365ft/lbs at 3300rpm must be rough. That's more than my 32 valve 4.6 liter V8 DOHC Mustang Cobra that made 305hp@5800rpm and 300ft/lbs at 4800rpm. I even made sure to show you a stock turbo car without any built motor or swapped turbo. It's a stock higher mileage car with a new clutch, exhaust, and bigger injectors. That's all it needs for 11's and 365ft/lbs at 3300rpm from a 2.0 4 cylinder. http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-dyno-tuning-results/577440-my-evo-ix-stealth-set-up-tuning-results.html
          Dean Hammond
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          Acid, the eco engines hit torque peak at 1500 rpms....the Evos are notorious for turbo lag....3800 rpms is WAY too high for anything less than a sigularly focused vehicle like it is, its driveability would most definitely NOT appeal to the masses....
          AcidTonic
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dean Hammond
          @Dean, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have one sitting in my driveway, everyone who ever drove it was simply blown away a little 2.0 could be *that* responsive. I find that smoother power delivery allows better traction compared to dumping all that torque at once. If you try to go fast below 3000rpm you're a fool anyway. Even my Cobra was a dog at 3000rpm before the butterflies opened at 3250. After the Evo 8, the lag issue was greatly reduced with variable cam timing that vastly improves spool. The 9 used a bigger turbo than the Evo 8, and spooled it faster to boot. I really wouldn't want a turbo that spools at 1500rpm making almost zero power and running out of breath quickly as rpm rises. Thanks for at least trying to have a debate instead of lumping my arguments in with mindless trolls who aren't trying to speak on a technical level.
    • Load More Comments