Fuel Economy and Driving Range

From Car and Driver

Fuel Economy and Driving Range Rating:

Those who believe the “Eco” in EcoSport stands for economical will be disappointed. Neither of the two available engines are inefficient per se; they just lag behind the competition in EPA estimates, real-world highway fuel economy, and highway driving range.

Fuel Economy Ratings Compared, Ford EcoSport FWD

Fuel Economy Ratings Compared, Ford EcoSport AWD

We’ve devised our own fuel-economy test in an attempt to replicate how most people drive on the highway. Our procedure entails a 200-mile out-and-back loop on Michigan’s I-94 highway. We maintain a GPS-verified 75 mph and use the cruise control as much as possible to mimic the way many drivers behave during long trips.

Surprisingly, the all-wheel-drive, four-cylinder EcoSport performed better on our real-world highway test than the front-drive three-cylinder version. We observed 30 mpg with the larger engine and just 28 with the 1.0-liter three. However, neither were as efficient as the Hyundai Kona or the Nissan Rogue Sport we tested.

Test Results: Highway Fuel Economy

Both EcoSport engines are fed from a 13.6-gallon fuel tank, but the larger four-cylinder has a longer estimated highway range because it performed better on our fuel loop. Still, only the Honda HR-V had a shorter range per tank than the Fords.

Test Results: Highway Range

You Might Also Like

• Unclogging Streets Could Help City Dwellers Save 125 Hours a Year

• The 10 Cheapest New Cars of 2018

• Get Out Early, Get In Late: What to Know About Auto Lease Transfers