In
the 15-some years that have passed since the launch of the
first-generation Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V, two pioneers in what would
become the compact crossover segment, things have changed tremendously.
Not only did someone coin the term "crossover," but segment entries have
multiplied exponentially while shedding almost all traces of their
frumpy, confused origins. Of course, despite the small crossover's
continually increasing popularity, not everyone is convinced. Most car
lovers continue to profess a preference for hatches and wagons, only
moving to minivans with gritted teeth when more space is needed under
the cover of practicality. But wagon-loving enthusiasts are a sliver of
the population, while crossover-loving families continue to multiply.
The segment-leading Honda CR-V, for example, outsells the Dodge Grand
Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans combined.
Which Compact Crossover SUV Would You Choose?
Total Votes: 6158
2013 Ford Escape Buyer's Guide
MSRP: $22,470 - $32,120
MPG Range: 28 - 31 mpg
Body Style: SUV
Opting for
this breed of family car doesn't necessarily mean languishing in
automotive purgatory. The latest crop, particularly the all-new 2013 Mazda CX-5
and Ford Escape, brings style and driving fun to the table in addition
to the usual mix of practicality and a rich feature set. This test's
three other CUVS--Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, and Honda CR-V (the
reigning compact crossover king, victorious in the last comparison) --
also have some style and fun worked into their DNA. But which one
represents the best combination, not to mention value -- a huge factor
in the decision-making process of a new family that no longer has the
disposable income it once did.
and Ford Escape, brings style and driving fun to the table in addition
to the usual mix of practicality and a rich feature set. This test's
three other CUVS--Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, and Honda CR-V (the
reigning compact crossover king, victorious in the last comparison) --
also have some style and fun worked into their DNA. But which one
represents the best combination, not to mention value -- a huge factor
in the decision-making process of a new family that no longer has the
disposable income it once did.
All
five front-drive crossovers you see here cost around $30,000, give or
take a grand or two, are powered by four-cylinder engines (two even have
turbos), and are fitted with navigation systems. Our proving ground? The freeways, avenues, and twisty backroads in the suburbs east of Malibu. - Kirill Ougarov
. Our proving ground? The freeways, avenues, and twisty backroads in the suburbs east of Malibu. - Kirill Ougarov
5th Place: 2012 Volkswagen Tiguan
More Is Less
By: Scott Evans
More Is Less
By: Scott Evans
"Show
me the money" is an oft-used movie quote, and if you want to see the
Tiguan's money, it's under the hood, not on it. There were two things we
all agreed on when it came to the VW: All the value is in the
drivetrain, and the price tag is rather steep.
"Where's
the value? You're paying for an engine here and nothing else,"
associate editor Rory Jurnecka opined. Executive editor Ron Kiino
agreed. "Powertrain is great. This is what you're really paying for."
It
certainly is a good powertrain. The Tiguan was the quickest to 60 mph
(by more than half a second) and through the quarter mile. Editors loved
the smooth, torquey engine and its quick- and smooth-shifting six-speed
automatic.
But
we were disappointed with the ride quality. Senior features editor
Jonny Lieberman declared it "really poor, especially compared with the
Ford and the Mazda. Worse than the Honda, for sure, and maybe a tick
better than the Kia -- maybe." The Tiguan rode hard and transmitted
every bump into the cabin, though the impacts were never harsh or
violent. Unfortunately, the VW didn't fare much better in the corners,
where it felt tall and tippy -- traits exacerbated by the flat seats --
and sapped our confidence.
The
track told the same story. The Tiguan set the fast lap on the figure
eight with the highest average g, but mostly thanks to its strong
engine. The 0.80g average it pulled on the skidpad fell on the low end
of mid-pack. Braking from 60 mph, meanwhile, fell to the back of the
pack at 123 feet, due in part to its virtually tied-for-heaviest curb
weight of 3489 pounds.
Most
of our concerns, though, were between the doors. As tested, the Tiguan
was priced at least $1770 more than rest, but we had trouble seeing the
value. For $31,345, we got a car with navigation, a panoramic sunroof,
automatic windows all around, seat heaters, and rear-seat ventilation,
but no automatic climate control, power seats (except the driver's
seatback), leather, or automatic headlamps. While it wasn't missing any
key feature, we couldn't help but note that the rest of the field had
all the same features, and in some cases more, for less money. It didn't
stop there. Complaints went against the smallest seats-up cargo area in
the test, the heavy and hard-to-actuate folding rear seats, the plain
and downmarket interior, and the rather pointless mesh sunroof cover.
In
sales, more-for-less deals work. Less for less is a no-brainer. Less
for more, though, just doesn't make sense. That, in a nutshell, is why
the Tiguan finishes in fifth.
4TH PLACE: 2012 Kia Sportage
Beauty Is Skin Deep
By: Michael Febbo
Beauty Is Skin Deep
By: Michael Febbo
Kia
has a reputation for approaching any category as a value proposition.
Indeed, in this test, its well-equipped $28,600 Sportage EX wore the
most attractive as-tested price tag. Unfortunately for the Korean brand,
the only car it "outvalued" -- as in, the one most of us would buy
after the Kia -- was the Tiguan. Further, about the only unique amenity
on the Sportage was the cooled driver's seat -- apparently the passenger
can deal with a sweaty backside -- though its extensive list of
niceties can't be overlooked: navigation, smart key with push-button
start, backup camera, 18-inch wheels, panoramic sunroof, heated mirrors, LED daytime running lamps.
, 18-inch wheels, panoramic sunroof, heated mirrors, LED daytime running lamps.
Our
testers all complained about suspension and chassis issues, calling the
ride harsh yet poorly controlled. Kia has a knack for making a
suspension too stiff and inaccurate, producing all the negatives of a
sporty suspension with none of the positives. Online production manager
Kirill Ougarov wondered, "Who tuned this suspension? Did anyone?"
Jurnecka commented, "Wow, this thing is all over the place on
Mulholland. Feels like in every corner it's trying to head in a
different direction. Tons of body roll." Associate editor Scott Evans
added, "Worst ride quality. Very hard, unnecessarily so. Lots of head
toss, especially on the freeway." Lieberman summed it up as "goofy."
While
opinions on the suspension were pretty unified, they differed on the
interior. Everyone seemed to like the design, but felt let down by the
materials. The dash is a beautiful piece of style executed in
hollow-feeling molded plastic. Most of the vehicles in this comparison
use a variety of soft-touch and hard plastics, but Kia appeared to cut
more corners. The seats were described as everything from "as hard as a
wooden chair" to unsupportive to plain hurtful. Nor was it just the
seats. Lieberman aimed his sights right in front of his face, at the
helm: "My nephew has toy dinosaurs made of nicer stuff than this
steering wheel. Why would you make the part of the car the owner (and
potential owner) touches the most the single worst-feeling part?"
The
second-least-powerful 176-hp Kia was, unsurprisingly, the
second-slowest vehicle from zero to 60 (9.1 seconds) and in the quarter
mile (17.0 seconds at 81.2 mph). Everyone judged its six-speed automatic
as the most seamless and responsive. Everyone also loved the Sportage's
lowest as-tested price, lofty level of equipment, and standout styling.
It still looks like it could double as an eye-catching concept. Its
modern lines and good proportions made this the most admired exterior of
the group. Sad to say, the marginal performance combined with
aggravating ride comfort and handling really knocked it down in the
rankings.
3RD PLACE: 2012 Honda CR-V
New, but only a bit better
By: Ron Kiino
New, but only a bit better
By: Ron Kiino
"Feels
like the old CR-V, but 10 percent better," said Scott Evans of Honda's
fourth-generation crossover. Given that the "old" CR-V won a 2010
comparison against the likes of the GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, and Subaru Forester,
a 10 percent improvement for the 2012 model isn't necessarily a bad
thing. But in this field, with fresh entries from Ford, Kia, and Mazda,
not to mention a face-lifted VW Tiguan, 10 percent wasn't quite enough
for the CR-V to retain its top spot.
,
a 10 percent improvement for the 2012 model isn't necessarily a bad
thing. But in this field, with fresh entries from Ford, Kia, and Mazda,
not to mention a face-lifted VW Tiguan, 10 percent wasn't quite enough
for the CR-V to retain its top spot.
Lieberman
dubbed the Honda "the winner from the B-pillar back," thanks to a slick
one-pull folding back seat, a flat floor, and a low cargo load height.
So, if you deem the front seat less important than what's behind them,
the CR-V is the CUV of choice. We wouldn't fault you for choosing the
Honda, as it's a compellingly strong example of efficient packaging.
Associate editor Mike Febbo noted, "Either the packaging is utterly
brilliant, or Honda has sacrificed someplace. After seeing it next to
the other cars, I am having a tough time seeing any sacrifice, so maybe
it is packaged that well." Nor would we fault the 25,186 Americans who
bought one in May, making the CR-V the best-selling SUV for that month
and all of 2012. But for enthusiasts like us, the CR-V needed to be 10
percent better from behind the steering wheel.
Evans
logged: "I don't remember the full-electric steering being this subpar.
It's very light and artificial. At lower speeds, it's fine for the
target audience, but it loses confidence as speeds increase." Lieberman
noted: "You're lower in the Honda than in the others. Very flat driver
seat -- obviously designed for ease of ingress/egress and not for
holding a driver in place." With the smallest wheel/tire combination and
the softest suspension, both of which deliver a cushy highway ride, the
CR-V delivered the least lateral grip and slowest figure eight (0.78 g
and 28.8 seconds at 0.57 g, respectively), and ultimately proved less
inspiring on twisty roads.
In
a straight line, though, the Honda, with its 185-hp I-4 and five-speed
automatic, was anything but lackluster. From 0 to 60, the CR-V (8.4
seconds) trailed only the turbocharged Tiguan (7.8), and nearly caught
the Vee-dub at the quarter mile (16.3 seconds at 85.6 mph versus 16.2 at
86.4). The CR-V may only have five gears, but its acceleration times
were solid. And in 60-to-0 braking, its 117-foot distance placed it
comfortably mid-pack.
At
$29,575 as-tested, our CR-V with the EX-L trim and nav was neither the
cheapest nor the most expensive, but it was the best equipped. The only
items missing were a power tailgate, a blind-spot system, and alloys
larger than 17 inches. The one item we deemed needing improvement was
the navigation display ("compared with Ford's Sync, Honda's nav screen
seems from a different decade," said Lieberman). Minor demerits, but
combined with the unenthusiastic driving experience, they rendered the
CR-V third.
2ND PLACE: 2013 Mazda CX-5
The Little CUV That (Almost) Could
By: Jonny Lieberman
The Little CUV That (Almost) Could
By: Jonny Lieberman
"SkyActively
slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda.
Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison
test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow,
especially in passing situations. Why? Well, it's because Americans are
allergic to premium fuel. In Europe, the CX-5 is available with a 14:1
compression ratio engine, but Mazda gives the U.S. a 13:1 ratio
motivator that drinks 87 octane, and, as a result, is really slow.
Besides
being slow, it's a great little trucklette. Like seemingly all Mazdas,
the CX-5 focuses on the sporty side of driving first and everything else
second. "Sweet, sporty chassis. Great steering feel, good balance,
loads of grip. Really does feel like the Mazda3 of CUVs," said Kiino.
Echoed Febbo, "Great steering; feels like it's lifted straight from a
'3. This really is just a lifted, vertically stretched hatchback." And
as a new father, Mr. Febbo no doubt agrees with Ougarov's comments:
"Large, easy-to-load cargo area. Ron's giant stroller fit without
trouble, and there's room left over for a small bag. Fitting the car
seat didn't require any extra effort." Engine notwithstanding, we liked
almost everything about the CX-5.
That
"almost" is the CX-5's six-speed transmission. Said Evans, "It's a bit
slow, and there's no sport mode, just manual. Has an odd habit of doing a
double downshift when you stomp on it, then changing back up one gear a
second later." Febbo totally disagreed. "Transmission is quick and
responsive for the most part, and the throttle is easily modulated."
Regardless, the CX-5's lack of oomph means either you or the car will be
shifting gears almost constantly. Luckily, Mazda has manual mode
correctly sorted: forward for down, back for up.
"Great-looking
car; the best here in that regard, I think," noted Jurnecka, and he's
not alone in that opinion. In fact, the CX-5 is the best-looking Mazda
product in quite some time. Our evaluation crew had similar high praise
for the CX-5's interior, with Kiino pointing out, "Love the firm,
supportive seats. At first, they seem too hard, but after a little drive
time, you realize they're really, really good seats." We felt the cabin
could use some other colors besides pitch black, but at least the
materials were nice and soft. The TomTom navigation -- especially
compared with Ford's killer app -- was a disappointment. There are two
possible conclusions to take away here: One, if Ford hadn't done such a
good job with the Escape, the CX-5 would be our winner. Two, if Mazda
could add a little extra power to the CX-5, well, winner, winner, Mazda
chicken dinner.
1ST PLACE: 2013 Ford Escape
Doing It Right
By: Kirill Ougarov
Doing It Right
By: Kirill Ougarov
By
its nature, this segment doesn't really have room for greatness. That
said, the new Ford Escape is about as close to being great as a compact
CUV is going to get. While not at the top of the pack in every aspect,
the Escape does almost everything right.
Take
the powertrain, for example. The 1.6-liter turbo-four is one reason
Ford beat Mazda for the gold medal. Evans found it a "strong little
engine," while Kiino noted that it has "great power from 2000 to 5000
rpm." More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was
low on power or struggled to accelerate. The six-speed automatic worked
well, providing smooth though not particularly quick shifts. The
knob-based manual shift buttons discourage the use of the manual mode,
but are better than nothing at all. The Escape also impressed us with
its ride, both on the freeway and on the back roads. Kiino noted that
the chassis "has a sporty edge to it that makes it feel light and
lively," while Febbo said it was the "best in the canyon." Evans chose
to dissent slightly by noting that the Escape had slightly too much body
roll for his taste.
Feelings
about the sheetmetal were generally positive, especially compared with
the previous Escape, which looked like a shrunken Explorer. This one,
bearing fresh European styling, is actually pleasing to the eye, though
Lieberman described it best by saying it "looks like a pumped-up Focus,"
which is accurate even if it can be taken as a backhanded compliment.
Inside,
the revolution is equally dramatic. The old Escape's slabby and trucky
design makes way for a futuristic setup based on that of the Focus,
though it's been considerably toned down. Everyone loved the Sync system
and the big high-resolution navigation screen. The Escape was also the
only one of the five to come with a power tailgate: Step up to an SEL
and for an extra $1895, the tailgate becomes "hands free," meaning it'll
open when you wave a foot under the rear bumper. Further, the Escape
had the second-biggest cargo area of the bunch, giving up ground only to
the expertly packaged Honda. Some concerns were voiced about backseat
legroom and the general comfort level of the rear bench. Both were
partly alleviated by the rear seat's ability to recline, greatly
improving comfort. The only other knock against the Escape is the lack
of a backup camera in the SE trim; you'd have to move up to an SEL to
get it.
A
perfect vehicle the Escape is not, but it is a big leap forward for
Ford and the segment as a whole, because it proves you can get style,
function, and fun in one well-priced package. Best of all, this one's
from the home team.
| 2013 Ford Escape SE | 2012 Honda CR-V EX-L | 2012 Kia Sportage EX | |
| POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS | |||
| DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT | Front engine, FWD | Front engine, FWD | Front engine, FWD |
| ENGINE TYPE | Turbocharged I-4, aluminum block/head | I-4, aluminum block/head | I-4, aluminum block/head |
| VALVETRAIN | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl |
| DISPLACEMENT | 97.6 cu in/1599 cc | 143.6 cu in/2354 cc | 144.0 cu in/2359 cc |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 10.0:1 | 10.0:1 | 10.5:1 |
| POWER (SAE NET) | 173 hp @ 5700 rpm | 185 hp @ 7000 rpm | 176 hp @ 6000 rpm |
| TORQUE (SAE NET) | 184 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm | 163 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm | 168 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm |
| REDLINE | 6500 rpm | 7000 rpm | 6000 rpm |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 19.6 lb/hp | 18.1 lb/hp | 18.7 lb/hp |
| TRANSMISSION | 6-speed automatic | 5-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO | 3.21:1/2.39:1 | 4.44:1/2.38:1 | 3.20:1/2.47:1 |
| SUSPENSION, FRONT;REAR | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar |
| STEERING RATIO | 15.2:1 | 16.7:1 | 15.7:1 |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 2.6 | 3.2 | 3 |
| BRAKES, F;R | 11.8-in vented disc; 11.0-in disc, ABS | 11.8-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS | 11.0-in vented disc; 10.3-in disc, ABS |
| WHEELS | 7.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum | 6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum | 7.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum |
| TIRES | 235/55R17 99H M+S Continental ContiProContact | 225/65R17 102T M+S Continental CrossContact LX | 235/55R18 100H Hankook Optimo H426 |
| DIMENSIONS | |||
| WHEELBASE | 105.9 in | 103.1 in | 103.9 |
| TRACK, F/R | 61.5/61.6 in | 61.6/61.6 in | 63.5/63.6 in |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 178.1 x 72.4 x 66.3 in | 178.3 x 71.6 x 64.7 in | 174.8 x 73.0 x 64.4 in |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 7.9 in | 6.3 in | 6.8 in |
| APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE | 21.9/27.6 deg | 28.0/21.0 deg | 28.1/28.2 deg |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 38.7 ft | 37.3 ft | 34.7 ft |
| CURB WEIGHT | 3490 lb | 3342 lb | 3284 lb |
| WEIGHT DIST, F/R | 58/42% | 58/42% | 58/42% |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 2000 lb | 1500 lb | 2000 lb |
| SEATING CAPACITY | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 39.9/39.0 in | 38.0/38.6 in | 39.1/38.5 in |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 40.4/36.8 in | 41.3/38.3 in | 41.4/37.9 in |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 56.0/55.3 in | 58.6/56.4 in | 56.7/55.1 in |
| CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R | 68.1/34.3 cu ft | 70.9/37.2 cu ft | 54.6/26.1 cu ft |
| TEST DATA | |||
| ACCELERATION TO MPH | |||
| 0-30 | 2.6 sec | 3.0 sec | 3.0 sec |
| 0-40 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| 0-50 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.6 |
| 0-60 | 8.9 | 8.4 | 9.1 |
| 0-70 | 11.8 | 11 | 12.5 |
| 0-80 | 15.5 | 13.9 | 16.4 |
| 0-90 | 20.4 | 18.4 | — |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 5.2 | 4.6 | 5.1 |
| QUARTER MILE | 16.7 sec @ 82.4 mph | 16.3 sec @ 85.6 mph | 17.0 sec @ 81.2 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 116 ft | 117 ft | 117 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.84 g (avg) | 0.78 g (avg) | 0.79 g (avg) |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 28.0 sec @ 0.61 g (avg) | 28.8 sec @ 0.57 g (avg) | 28.6 sec @ 0.58 g (avg) |
| TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH | 1600 rpm | 1700 rpm | 1900 rpm |
| CONSUMER INFO | |||
| BASE PRICE | $25,895 | $23,325 | $24,700 |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $28,750 | $29,575 | $28,600 |
| STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL | Yes/yes | Yes/yes | Yes/yes |
| AIRBAGS | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 5 yrs/60,000 mi |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 10 yrs/100,000 mi |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | — | 5 yrs/60,000 mi |
| FUEL CAPACITY | 15.1 gal | 15.3 gal | 14.5 gal |
| MT FUEL ECON | 21.4 mpg | 21.4 mpg | 15.8 mpg |
| EPA CITY/HWY ECON | 23/33 mpg | 23/31 mpg | 22/32 mpg |
| ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY | 147/102 kW-hrs/100 mi | 147/109 kW-hrs/100 mi | 153/105 kW-hrs/100 mi |
| CO2 EMISSIONS | 0.73 lb/mi | 0.75 lb/mi | 0.76 lb/mi |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | Unleaded regular | Unleaded regular | Unleaded regular |
| 2013 Mazda CX-5 (Grand Touring) | 2012 Volkswagen Tiguan (SE) | |
| POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS | ||
| DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT | Front engine, FWD | Front engine, FWD |
| ENGINE TYPE | I-4, aluminum block/head | Turbocharged I-4, iron block/aluminum head |
| VALVETRAIN | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl | DOHC, 4 valves/cyl |
| DISPLACEMENT | 121.9 cu in/1997 cc | 121.0 cu in/1984 cc |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 13.0:1 | 9.6:1 |
| POWER (SAE NET) | 155 hp @ 6000 rpm | 200 hp @ 5100 rpm |
| TORQUE (SAE NET) | 150 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm | 207 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm |
| REDLINE | 6500 rpm | 6000 rpm |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 21.4 lb/hp | 17.4 lb/hp |
| TRANSMISSION | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO | 4.62:1/2.77:1 | 3.45:1/2.38:1 |
| SUSPENSION, FRONT;REAR | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar |
| STEERING RATIO | 15.5:1 | 16.3:1 |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| BRAKES, F;R | 11.7-in vented disc; 11.9-in disc, ABS | 12.3-in vented disc; 11.3-in disc, ABS |
| WHEELS | 7.0 x 19-in, cast aluminum | 7.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum |
| TIRES | 225/55R19 99V M+S Toyo A23 | 235/50R18 97H M+S Continental ContiProContact |
| DIMENSIONS | ||
| WHEELBASE | 106.3 in | 102.5 in |
| TRACK, F/R | 62.4/62.5 in | 61.8/61.9 in |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 178.7 x 72.4 x 65.7 in | 174.5 x 71.2 x 65.6 in |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 8.5 in | 6.9 in |
| APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE | 18.6/24.4 deg | 28.0/25.0 deg |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 36.7 ft | 39.0 ft |
| CURB WEIGHT | 3312 lb | 3489 lb |
| WEIGHT DIST, F/R | 58/42% | 58/42% |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 2000 lb | 2200 lb |
| SEATING CAPACITY | 5 | 5 |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 40.1/39.0 in | 39.1/39.0 in |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 41.0/39.3 in | 40.1/35.8 in |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 57.5/55.5 in | 56.2/55.0 in |
| CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R | 65.4/34.1 cu ft | 56.1/23.8 cu ft |
| TEST DATA | ||
| ACCELERATION TO MPH | ||
| 0-30 | 3.0 sec | 2.6 sec |
| 0-40 | 4.8 | 4.1 |
| 0-50 | 6.8 | 5.9 |
| 0-60 | 9.4 | 7.8 |
| 0-70 | 12.6 | 10.7 |
| 0-80 | 17.2 | 13.9 |
| 0-90 | — | 17.5 |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 5.2 | 4.2 |
| QUARTER MILE | 17.1 sec @ 79.9 mph | 16.2 sec @ 86.4 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 113 ft | 123 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.84 g (avg) | 0.80 g (avg) |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 28.4 sec @ 0.59 g (avg) | 27.9 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) |
| TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH | 2000 rpm | 1800 rpm |
| CONSUMER INFO | ||
| BASE PRICE | $21,490 | $23,660 |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $29,165 | $31,345 |
| STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL | Yes/yes | Yes/yes |
| AIRBAGS | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain | Dual front, front side, f/r curtain |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 3 yrs/36,000 mi |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 5 yrs/60,000 mi | 5 yrs/60,000 mi |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 3 yrs/36,000 mi | 3 yrs/36,000 mi |
| FUEL CAPACITY | 14.8 gal | 16.8 gal |
| MT FUEL ECON | 22.3 mpg | 20.7 mpg |
| EPA CITY/HWY ECON | 26/32 mpg | 22/27 mpg |
| ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY | 130/105 kW-hrs/100 mi | 153/125 kW-hrs/100 mi |
| CO2 EMISSIONS | 0.68 lb/mi | 0.81 lb/mi |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | Unleaded regular | Unleaded premium |
Compare Competitors
|
2013 Ford
Escape S Sport Utility
$22,470
2.5L 168hp I4
170 @ 4500 RPM
|
2013 Subaru
Forester 2.5X Sport Utility
$22,495
2.5L 170hp H4
174 @ 4100 RPM
|
2013 Mitsubishi
Outlander ES Sport Utility
$22,695
2.4L 168hp I4
167 @ 4100 RPM
|
<script
src=http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/motortrend.primedia.com/roadtest_overview_detailpage;abr=!ie;abr=!aol;!category=roadtest;page=1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison;sect=roadtest;subs=overview;subss=detailpage;bodystyle=SUVs;class=Compacts;make=Ford;model=Escape;year=2013;trim=S_Sport_Utility;cpo=false;article_id=;source_id=2962;camp_id=;sp=;rb=;site=motortrend;chan=autos;k=;kw=;entry=false;sz=1x2;tile=3;s=10127;s=10124;s=10118;s=10058;s=10163;s=10162;s=10711;se=;ord=98399;></script>
Posts
