Ford Escape Automobiles Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I went to the local Ford dealership today as they were having a little ceremony to honor local veterans, and they were also demolishing the old used car building via Ford F-150 FX4 EB (i'll post pictures of that later). Anyway I spotted this right out front. Hot off the truck, delivered last night. Here you go:






Frenchy, you may especially like this because of its color :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Very nice looking! It looks like it's flexing its muscles over those wheel arches. :lol:
 

·
Administrator
2015 Ford F-450 DRW
Joined
·
20,601 Posts
:drool: :drool:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
I'm surprised that they didn't distinguish the rear end more than this... It still has a very Escape/Kuga influence, right down to the mismatched grey trim piece at the bottom...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
I agree that the Escape's mismatched rear trim doesn't look the best, but Ford is hardly the only manufacturer to do this. I think the designer do it on purpose to break up the visual height of the vehicle from the rear view. I think most SUVs would look like minivans from behind if designers didn't play visual tricks on us.

I think Cadillac is the real offender here. The muffler or whatever it is hanging belong the rear bumper looks like a full diaper. :stifle: Ick.





 

·
Administrator
2015 Ford F-450 DRW
Joined
·
20,601 Posts
I agree with you about the Caddy SRX. :stifle:

Drove the MB GLK. Didn't care for it. Love how MB charges you for options such as the engine. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
Charles said:
I agree with you about the Caddy SRX. :stifle:
You had an old SRX, didn't you? I always thought those looked cool. I much prefer that generation of SRX (w/the Northstar V8 and Ultraview roof) to the current version.
 

·
Administrator
2015 Ford F-450 DRW
Joined
·
20,601 Posts
Mine was a 2007 SRX with the V6, Ultraview roof, etc. Liked the fact I could use regular gas instead of premium.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
Way more attractive than I had thought it would be. The back end, though not perfect, is way more tolerable than I hold of the current model Escape.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,656 Posts
FWIW there's a bit of silver trim on the low side of the front.

My only comment is... look at the size of that liftgate. It goes around the sides!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
tang said:
My only comment is... look at the size of that liftgate. It goes around the sides!
Sort of like the Audi Q5, huh?

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,656 Posts
Except it's not obvious if the tail lights of the Q5 stay or go with the liftgate, which is clearly the case with the MKC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
I looked at the mkc, but the only big diff between that and the loaded E was the 2.3L and couldn't justify the cost. Nice looking rig though. I'd love to know 2 things. Which trans the 2.3L uses (same as 2.0?) and how that power feels :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,656 Posts
I think the 2.3L gets paired with the 6F50. I don't believe the 6F35 (paired with the previous 3.0L and current 2.5L/1.6L/2.0L engines) is able to handle that much hp and torque.

2013 Taurus 2.0L EcoBoost/GTDI, 240hp and 270 ft-lb, got the 6F35.
2013 Taurus 3.5L Cyclone, 288 hp and 252 ft-lb, got the 6F50.
2013 Taurus 3.5L EcoBoost/GTDI, 365hp and 355 ft-lb, got the 6F55.

In the MKC, the 2.3L EcoBoost/GTDI is marked for 285hp and 305 ft-lb. In the next Explorer, it's rated for 270hp and 300 ft-lb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
We had one for Lincoln's two day drive and dinner event and came to the conclusion that we preferred our Escape. The Lincoln does not drive, ride, or handle as well and the 2.3 sucked fuel fairly prodigiously compared to our 2.0. We also did not like the seats as well as the leather ones on our Titanium... All in all, it seemed like more steps backward than forward for 10 grand more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
tang said:
I think the 2.3L gets paired with the 6F50. I don't believe the 6F35 (paired with the previous 3.0L and current 2.5L/1.6L/2.0L engines) is able to handle that much hp and torque.

2013 Taurus 2.0L EcoBoost/GTDI, 240hp and 270 ft-lb, got the 6F35.
2013 Taurus 3.5L Cyclone, 288 hp and 252 ft-lb, got the 6F50.
2013 Taurus 3.5L EcoBoost/GTDI, 365hp and 355 ft-lb, got the 6F55.

In the MKC, the 2.3L EcoBoost/GTDI is marked for 285hp and 305 ft-lb. In the next Explorer, it's rated for 270hp and 300 ft-lb.
345hp in the RS!!! :D I hope.

With a tune and some parts the 2.0 can make up near 260-280hp at the wheels. The 6f50 can handle that added power though!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top