fbov

Ditto. That's the smaller Ford SUV all right, but I would be surprised if it wasn't an EV. Remember, too, that the Escape platform has a 2-door variant. I don't see it getting a hybrid option... but the bigger the family, the better the chances a hybrid option remains in the order book.

"The Escape... hybrid models can each tow 1500 pounds. " From a Car and Driver comparison with RAV-4 and CR-V. First time I've seen a tow ration confirmed. Frank

You answered your own question. I expect more torque from an "oversquare" design (stroke/bore >1) than an "undersquare" design. Our stroke/bore is 0.95 and torque rather anemic and in need of EV assist. The 2.5L ratio is 1.125, so if HP is up 10, maybe torque will be closer to the EV side's 177 lb. ft? That would be impressive! I think I saw a number in the low 40's for wheel well spacing... If it's the same transmission, I expect the same towing prohibition. If this motor has a bunch more torque, perhaps it's a different tranny. Have fun, Frank

And the more I look at the spec sheet, the more I think they're using the same-or-similar HF35 transaxel. - "system power" is up 10 hp, but that's easy to get without EV changes, given a 25% ICE displacement increase - total transaxel load is unchanged. Weight is down 2%, and once you account for tire size, final drive ration is only 1.5% higher. HVB is also a wash; if Ford can operate the smaller HVB up to 85% SOC with cooling, effective capacity becomes 0.66 kWh vs. our 0.7 kWh. If this is correct, operation should be very similar to our cars at lower speeds, with slightly worse highway mileage based on Cd and greater vehicle size (published range and tank size imply 10% worse mileage than C-Max, based on the same data). Specs comparison Cmax Escape.pdf Have fun, Frank PS I also there's more interest in the car here, in the C-Max forum, than in any of the Escape forums because we're a bunch of hybrid drivers frustrated by the lack of current replacement options.

That requires a battery swap system that doesn't exist yet.

My wife's Sonata has this as a user option. Frank

I think both versions have the same electric coolant capacity, so I wonder if there's plumbing involved? I also wonder if battery temperature control has advantages for battery operating range, given Ford will sell me the same configuration they sell you. I run into cold limits (32 F for charging, 0 F for discharging), while your environment might require we all use a lower maximum charge level. Looking at Battery U., there's room for more than 75% upper limit, before life is substantially degraded from 75-25% operation. https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries I wonder if active thermal control is used to extend the SOC range to 85-25%, allowing a smaller hybrid battery to have the same performance. Conversely, might it also keep mine warm when it's below zero. Might it also provide a degree of puncture protection, if the coolant seals off oxygen? Wondering... Frank

It's not the price of the battery, its logistics: it's costly to maintain two different chassis electrical configurations. Production of complex machines is a death of a thousand cuts - the sheer number of parts needed to make these cars is staggering. Far easier to containerize drive trains separate from chassis as much as possible, since there will be several gas-only configurations on the same assembly line with the hybrid. I may go sit in a 2019... Frank Huhh... just saw this: "... vehicle comes with a liquid-cooled battery located beneath the second row of seats..." The 11.2 qt. (electric) coolant is for the battery... perhaps overheating was an issue? Interesting innovation...

Excellent link. The two 2.5L options, are FHEV and PHEV, hybrid and plug-in respectively. Note the plug-in has more HP and less fuel tank capacity. It makes sense that the plug-in would have a smaller tank to make room for a larger battery. According to this, there will also be an AWD hybrid, but no AWD plug-in. This is a hybrid in the mold of the Fusion Hybrid; just another drive train for a popular SUV. Look at the tires... big 17- and 18-inch rims with 25% greater load capacity than a C-max, in a lighter vehicle. It gets an inch and a half lift from the tires, alone. Ground clearance will be much greater, step-in height will not be car-like... it's an SUV. Have fun, Frank

From Autoweek: Finally, a new 2.5-liter Atkinson-cycle non-turbo four will pair with the Escape hybrid powertrain, putting down either 198 hp or 209 hp total with battery assist. There will be both a plug-in and a standard Escape hybrid. The plug-in gets the higher power number.... The hybrids get a continuously variable automatic transmission, or CVT. ... The regular Escape hybrid uses a briefcase-size battery under the floor and is good for up to 550 miles of total range with a full tank of fuel. The plug-in has a larger battery (14.1 kWh vs 1.1 kWh), good for 30 miles of pure electric range. Charging time on the plug-in is 3.5 hours on a Level 2 charger, 10-11 hours on a 115-volt home plug. New for 2020, both Escape hybrids have four hybrid-specific modes that include auto EV (the vehicle decides whether to run gas or electric), EV now (all-electric driving), EV later (all gas-powered driving) and EV charge (drivers can continue to charge the battery while driving to generate electric-only miles later). The cargo area is about 3 cubic feet smaller in the hybrids (37.5 to 34.4 behind the second row) due to the placement of the 12-volt battery in the rear. ... In fact, the 2020 Escape is 5 percent more aero efficient than the outgoing model. Ford engineers claim to have looked at everything to reduce drag, including the mirrors, taillamps, front tire spoilers and the fog lamp pockets.------- So... plug-ins get 11 more HP! I'm curious about battery size; does the "briefcase" fit under the seat? It would be nice if only the plug-in lost rear legroom. That's one good reason for a 1.1 kWh! I'm curious where they get that 11 HP!! If it's lower and wider than the 2019 Escape, lower is likely down to the height of the C-Max, but wider is up from +3 in. wider than C-Max. No matter now low the Cd (they don't spec a number, just 5% "better"), the hole in the air is about 10% bigger. Highway mileage will be lower. Around town, it's "200 lb. lighter," but lighter than what? Paul will still hit 60 MPG, but he's Paul. Looks interesting, though.Frank

+1 As long as all the recalls are complete, you have years of driving ahead of you. My 2013 is at 61K and my only regret is that I missed the opportunity to trade it in for a 2018 C-Max. Frank

A code is a short-term problem. I would be more concerned about the long term effect of different chemistry in the fuel lines. I seem to recall that seals degrade if not designed for high alcohol fraction in the fuel? Any major repairs would swamp the cost savings. Have fun, Frank

I had the same problem early on, then I put my knee in the middle of the seat and suddenly, it did't work at all! This was around the time of the seat back recall, so it was all under warranty. The replacement element's been great. I see we're all 2013's; perhaps early elements were too low in resistance? Frank

FWIW, no wooooo from my ANC for several years now. It was always intermittent, not showing until a trip to Vermont for Thanksgiving 2013. Then it became persistent, say once a month in winter, now gone? Here's a thought. The root cause is a chassis/frame/drive train resonance that's been in cars for years, but which no one noticed as long as engine speed is constantly changing. I grew up driving a clutch, so I always listen to an automatic's shift points. My wife's Hyundai hybrid is a 6-speed. Driving a C-Max, the biggest difference initially was the lack of engine speed changes. I'm now comfortable with a car driven by a "stationary engine" designed to run a constant RPM. Designing loudspeakers, you quickly learn that resonances are a lot easier to hear than drop-outs; peaks stick out more than dips. You don't need much energy to excite them, and once they start buzzing, you can't miss it. I once measured a box with a resonance in the mid 400 Hz range, "middle A". Never heard it, except when using a frequency generator to zero in on the exact frequency! Ford didn't have the luxury of only suppressing musical notes. They had a broadband source that would continuously change base frequency by a factor of 6, and stay there for a while. The driver can easily run the engine at the exact speed needed to excite any resonance. That's a tough thing to counteract. Ford did a pretty good job in my book. And the wooooo is now gone because the chassis has aged and I do have one case of very hard braking on rough road that would have loosened things up. If yours still wooooo's and you haven't pulled the mic, maybe try looking for a bumpy road? Have fun, Frank

What was your inflation pressure? I don't see any numbers, and without them, there's not much to say. I have used sidewall ratings exclusively for setting tire pressures since the Carter administration. This way, tires running at their maximum load capacity, so their actual load is the smallest possible fraction of maximum capacity. Put another way, I want as head room as I can get. Tires run cooler, last longer, handle more predictably. I have had a blow-out. A granite curb had a lot to do with it, tire pressure was not a factor. As to the effectiveness improving mileage, unless you are getting very high mileage already, improvements are invisible. No-ethanol fuel is a good example. The first period is 87E10, and average is 54.8 MPG. Second period is 91E0, and average rises to 58.6 MPG. The third period averages 56.3 MPG, and it's curious. The change occurred after braking very hard over very rough roadway (construction). I later found out that my tire pressures had dropped from the 50 PSI setting. Best I can figure, air leaked out the bead when I hit the bumps. But it gives you some idea how tire pressures can affect mileage. Note that this data is for a known rural route, driven for maximum mileage within speed limit constraints. You'll see things when you're averaging 55 MPG that you don't see at 35 MPG. Have fun, Frank

Mine went into service November 2012, and I'm still on the original battery. It did go dead once, when I failed to pull the radio fuse in time (once in 3 times). Still waiting for untoward behavior. Frank

Yep! In the Spring, of course.

FWIW, I have about 38K on my OE Michelins, and the distinct roar from the rear passenger-side tire has disappeared now that the snow tires are on. your noise could be the tires, or something else. Note that my noisy tire has been on the same corner for its entire life. I chunked the sidewall on the RF tire early in ownership, so the same tire always had the most tread, and went on the front. The entire set's below 3 mm tread left now, so, I can't complain about them making noise. I won't hear it ever again. Have fun, Frank

Let's make some estimates. As I recall, the Energi is rated for ~20 mile range when its 7.5 kWh battery is fully charged. The Hybrid has 1.5 kWh HVB, 20% the size, so 20% the distance when used to full capacity - 4 miles. Usable HVB range is about 30% to 70%, and those are reflected in the display; full battery display is 70% charged, so 70% battery display is more like 58% charge, just as 30% display is more like 42% charge. You're only using (58% - 42% = ) 26% of the battery capacity moving from 70% to 40% displayed. You're seeing 1-1.5 miles of driving, and this estimate predicts 1.04 miles. I don't see any shortfall; get out and enjoy the car! Have fun, Frank

It shouldn't. You kill a Li-ion battery by charging it too high and storing it hot. The control system automatically limits you to ~30-70% operating range, and that's what's shown - HVB indicator at zero is 30% charged, full is 70% charged. You can't hurt this HVB very easily. And if you want to get your battery full... move to a cold place (long warm-up runs), drive down a long hill, or back off the throttle enough to keep the "^" or "charging" carat visible. That will mean slower starts and longer acceleration which allows the HVB to charge up. Then you may get into "negative split" mode, where the engine's running slowly, so you're getting 60 MPG. Have fun, Frank

You did this because? There is a myth that you get better snow traction at lower tire pressure. It's like the ABS myth that locked wheels stop you faster - true in some circumstances. ABS is disadvantaged in deep snow or gravel, where a locked wheel plows a wall in front of it, rather than sliding over it. Similarly, in a few cases you can get more traction by reducing tire pressure. Driving in snow on paved roads is not one of them. Modern tire designs want a small contact patch to maximize the tread bite into the snow, and hopefully through it to the road. A long contact patch has advantages, but you only get that from tall, narrow tires. Have fun, Frank

Paul's posted a lot of data on the benefits of warming before setting off in cold weather, even in Georgia. Many of us in colder areas wish the immersion heater were more common. The cold is a real hit to mileage, and a heater can eliminate a lot of the start-up losses. If you have a regular departure time, Paul's suggested using a timer to run it for no longer than 3 hours before you leave (if I've read between the lines of his post). Have fun, Frank

PORTER-181019.pdf Latest oil quality report, and a summary of all my data. It's all good. Bov Oil Data 181019.pdf Blackstone's comments focus on the flash-point depression due to fuel in the oil. The previous oil change occurred immediately after a 200 mile run on the NYS Thruway. This change occurred after a period of increasingly shorter trips now that I'm retired. I didn't make 5K miles last year, so I'm leaving the oil in (TBN looks good). I'll sent another sample when I get a chance to do a bunch of highway miles, as well as at 10K. This was my last data point in a test of oil weight effects. 0W20 seemed to allow more fuel in the oil than 5W20. There is no effect seen here. The high level here negates the possibility of any difference between 5W20 and 0W20. Next, I'll be testing the hypothesis that a long high-speed drive is the cure for fuel in the oil. As to wear... Al, Cr, Iron and Mn are flat (constant wear rate) when miles on the oil are considered. Cu and K are dropping strongly, as if their supply was running out Mb and B vary widely, but they are primarily additives, dependent on the brand of oil installed. Same with Ca, Mg, Ph and Zn. Si is of special interest, as a measure of air filter efficiency. I have not changed the engine air filter, and I don't intend to do so. As the filter clogs, it should become more efficient in filtering particles. This data does nothing to contradict that hypothesis. We'll see what happens to Si level in the next 5K miles. Have fun, Frank

Sounds like a job for "grade assist." Use the button on the side of the gear shift. Frank

This bears repeating... You can only lose energy. The trick is losing as little as you can. The ICE is the least efficient link, but a necessary one. Run at low RPM at high load to minimize losses. Regen braking suffers from dual losses; between the charging, storage, conversion and EV inefficiencies, you lose 20%. Climbing a hill has no energy losses, beyond those due to aero and rolling resistances that are present in all cases. Continuing to roll (as in Neutral) also has no losses, beyond aero/rolling. It seems to me that running in L eliminates that last option, which I find to be very efficient. It optimizes regen, but that uses the 20% loss path more often than necessary. I see the appeal of this "hydro-static" transmission mode, just not an advantage. Have fun, Frank