I drove a 2013 Ford Escape 1.6Lturbo today, nicely equipped with pano roof and nav. Later I will drive the 2.0L turbo, something that appeals to me more because it's the most powerful and quickest in this class of SUV. In general a nice compact SUV, well-styled, huge upgrade over old design Escape. I will list some of my observations below as they relate to CX-5.
. Yes, I could feel a bit more power from the 1.6Lturbo versus the 2.0L CX-5 engine, despite a measurable weight difference. Ford intends the 1.6L to be the volume engine. (We already know the CX-5 exceeds the gas mileage of all Escape versions, now old news per EPA website.) Engine noise is about the same, refinement good for a 4 banger just like the CX-5, meaning vibration and harshness is relatively low. None of these 4 bangers have the refinement of the best premium in-line sixes or V6's, but the pricing is much different too.
. Auto tranny (6 speed) worked well in auto mode just like CX-5, manual mode requires a shifter pull down from D to S, then the rocker button on shifter works for manual shifting. In short I much prefer the BMW-style manual shift mode setup of the CX-5.
. For those that dislike the tastefully conservative and European dash/interior of CX-5, look at the Escape. It has more George Jetson swoopiness and Tokyo by night colorful dash lighting for increased amusment, very heavily styled.
. Sightlines out the front (180 degree view) are rather busy. The deep dash, pillars, windshield trim, dash surfacing and lumps and bumps just adds to the clutter.
. Pano roof was cool, in the reality is for those sitting in front seat (the 2 most important seats from my perspective) it's not much better than a conventional moonroof.
. I didn't play with the nav and sych system, no comments. I was there to drive on this 1st pass.
. Road noise w/18's was slightly higher than CX-5 (on both 17's or 19's), not horrible.
. I won't comment much on pricing, even if MSRP's are bloated. (It's less of an issue for me because of the corporate discounting available to my direct family members.)
In summary, this is a competitive and modern compact SUV, well done Ford.
. Yes, I could feel a bit more power from the 1.6Lturbo versus the 2.0L CX-5 engine, despite a measurable weight difference. Ford intends the 1.6L to be the volume engine. (We already know the CX-5 exceeds the gas mileage of all Escape versions, now old news per EPA website.) Engine noise is about the same, refinement good for a 4 banger just like the CX-5, meaning vibration and harshness is relatively low. None of these 4 bangers have the refinement of the best premium in-line sixes or V6's, but the pricing is much different too.
. Auto tranny (6 speed) worked well in auto mode just like CX-5, manual mode requires a shifter pull down from D to S, then the rocker button on shifter works for manual shifting. In short I much prefer the BMW-style manual shift mode setup of the CX-5.
. For those that dislike the tastefully conservative and European dash/interior of CX-5, look at the Escape. It has more George Jetson swoopiness and Tokyo by night colorful dash lighting for increased amusment, very heavily styled.
. Sightlines out the front (180 degree view) are rather busy. The deep dash, pillars, windshield trim, dash surfacing and lumps and bumps just adds to the clutter.
. Pano roof was cool, in the reality is for those sitting in front seat (the 2 most important seats from my perspective) it's not much better than a conventional moonroof.
. I didn't play with the nav and sych system, no comments. I was there to drive on this 1st pass.
. Road noise w/18's was slightly higher than CX-5 (on both 17's or 19's), not horrible.
. I won't comment much on pricing, even if MSRP's are bloated. (It's less of an issue for me because of the corporate discounting available to my direct family members.)
In summary, this is a competitive and modern compact SUV, well done Ford.