It baffles me how anyone can get excited about the 1.6 turbo motor that produces such poor fuel economy! 10-12 L /100 kms sucks.
I drive approx. 40,000 kms a year, I use about 6L/100 kms in my TDI. That represents a savings of around $3000 a year !!
They thought fuel economy suffered as a result; with the 1.6L, the Escape’s Natural Resources Canada estimates run as low as 9.1 L/100 km in city driving and 6.0 L/100 km on the highway for a front-wheel-drive model; ratings for my AWD tester are 9.2 and 6.6. I averaged 10.9 L/100 in mostly city driving, which one of those other journalists said was a full 20 percent better than he saw in a 2.0L model.
You're not comparing apples to apples. Your TDi doesn't have AWD. It doesn't have the same ground clearance. Both of which hit fuel economy.
At 40k a year, unless you're a part time cabbie, you are doing mostly highway mileage, where this thing is rated at 6.6L/100km (NRCan) with the 1.6L.
If you do compare apples to apples, the Escape with either 1.6L or 2.0L is rated higher than the space deficient Tiguan.
Imagine your savings if you actually had something really efficient, like say, a Prius.
Interesting how the NRCan ratings are so much more attractive than the comparator in your post, which seems far more realistic...
My concern is that I'm still far off, even at the 3000km mark. I asked the dealership if there could be something abnormal with my vehicle since all around the web, people are posting much better ratings, but they told me that if there was anything out of spec, the check engine light would come up.
Anyways I'll try ethanol-free gas on my next tank just to see if there's a noticeable difference.... but right now a tankful range of 375km is pretty ridiculous... If I could get, say, 11 L/100km City with a range of around 450km, that would be much more reasonable...
