(first posted 10/10/2016) If you were to briefly sum up the first generation Escape with a pastiche of a Gilbert & Sullivan song, it would go something like this:
I am the very model of a modern crossover utility
With a car-like ride that broadcasts utmost civility
My drivetrain is trendsetting in all things mechanical
Plus an exterior design so clean it’s downright puritanical
The Escape, like the Taurus and Explorer before it, arrived in a relatively new segment that already had established players. General Motors introduced the first modern front-wheel drive mid-size in 1981 with the Celebrity, several years before Ford arrived with its own competitor. The Explorer hit the streets well after Jeep introduced the unibody Cherokee.
When Ford entered the mid-size sedan and four door SUV segments, its vehicles set sizing standards that the competition would later emulate. Although the Escape never established a sizing precedent when it arrived for the 2001 model year, the compact crossover, along with its sibling the Mazda Tribute, offered a sporty ride and handling balance, and were the first crossovers from either company.
Considering the first modern crossovers were developed by Japanese automakers, the fact that Mazda was responsible for much of the engineering related to the Ford Escape should come as no surprise. That’s probably why the GF platform, which also saw use in the 626, was used instead of the setup that Ford developed for the first generation Focus, which debuted in 1998. Mazda’s sedan platform could also accommodate all-wheel drive and a V6 engine, and the 626 was available with both those things in the international market. The C170 platform didn’t have such capability.
Like a married couple sharing a toothbrush, the relationship between Ford and Mazda rested on a solid foundation of mutual cooperation and trust. It wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops though; Mazda faced serious financial difficulties which required immediate attention. While the entire world danced to the Macarena, Ford bought enough of Mazda to gain a controlling interest in the company and promptly installed one of their own as President. The ascension of Henry Wallace to the top position at Mazda marked the first time a foreign born citizen lead a Japanese company. Bringing Ford and Mazda closer together wasn’t a dramatic shift of the paradigm, although it did enhance communication between the companies to the point where a designer working for Ford could electronically share their work with Mazda almost as easily as if that designer worked within the Ford corporate structure.
This all came about in mid-1996, with Wallace quickly reorganizing Mazda in order get the company on a better financial footing. It certainly is not a great leap to attribute the creation of the Escape and Tribute to these changes in Mazda corporate governance. The timing also works out: about four years passed between Ford taking control of Mazda and the arrival of the Escape in 2000, enough time for a vehicle to be developed, especially one based on a preexisting platform.
No doubt Ford and Mazda saw the RAV4 with envious eyes. Introduced in Japan in 1993, Toyota had a bit of a head start by essentially creating the compact crossover segment. Honda and Subaru weren’t far behind, introducing the CR-V and Forester by 1997. All three shared common traits: donor unibody platforms from their small car brethren, four wheel independent suspensions, and standard or available drivetrains that could send power to the rear wheels.
This was quite different from the other Ford vehicles that started with the letter “E”. The Explorer, nearing the end of its second generation in 2000, completely shrugged off the Firestone controversy until 2001. 2000 was the best-ever year for the Explorer with an eye-popping 445,157 units sold. To put that into perspective, the best selling two-row utility vehicle for 2015 was the CR-V, which moved almost exactly 100,000 less units. The Mountaineer, which could arguably be added to the Explorer’s total, moved 46,547 units, meaning the duo came very close to half a million sales.
Did many customers negotiate the price of their Explorer far below MSRP? Doubtful, which means many drivers paid about $24,230 ($33,890.o6 adjusted, $90 more expensive than its modern counterpart) for the cheapest 4 door, 4WD drive Explorer, the XL. And many drivers shelled out far more than that, as the average transaction price for Ford’s darling SUV was about $30,000, which got you into a 4WD XLT. Once again adjusting for inflation gets you pretty close to the modern counterpart, which is the Limited. The 2016 equivalent even occupies the same rung on the Explorer ladder, two slots below the top trim, and the same position held by the XLT in 2000.
Until the Escape arrived, Ford lacked a cheap SUV-like vehicle. With an MSRP of $18,185 ($25,435 adjusted, $1800 more expensive than its modern equivalent) for a base front wheel drive model, cheap might not be the best term, but it certainly was less expensive than the Explorer to the tune of about four grand. The continued discussion about inflation adjusted pricing is possibly taking up more space than it should, but consider this: that four thousand dollars translates into about $5,600 today, which is almost the exact price difference between a base model 2017 Ford Escape S (MSRP $23,600) and a base 2017 Edge SE ($28,950).
Entry level Escapes came reasonably well equipped. Niceties such as power door locks, power windows, power mirrors, remote keyless entry, ABS, air conditioning, 15 inch wheels, a rear folding bench seat, and a four speaker AM/FM cassette/CD audio system were standard on the XLS trim level. Options for the XLS included 16 inch alloy wheels and the 3.0 Duratec V6 engine. Since the 2.0 Zetec four cylinder could not be equipped with an automatic transmission or all wheel drive it goes without saying that it was the less popular variant. Mazda put the take rate of similarly equipped Tributes at ten percent.
Speaking of that Duratec, it was the same engine found in the Taurus, and in this particular application put out 201 horsepower and 196 Ibs. torque, a figure much higher than the base engine or any engine from the competition. Paired with the V6 was a four speed automatic and Ford’s Control Trac II all-wheel drive system. Essentially an updated version of the setup offered in the Explorer, the system allows the Escape to operate in front wheel drive mode until slippage is detected, where it can then send up to 100 percent of the torque to the rear wheels. Unlike a traditional 4×4 setup there is no center differential. Instead, a viscous coupling system is used, which ultimately saves weight when compared to a setup that can truly lock all four wheels.
Oddly enough, the Escape initially had a dial on the dash where you could select “Auto” and “4×4 On.” The only difference between the two was the quickness in which the all-wheel drive system engaged, with “4×4 On” being the option desired if traction was a serious concern. That setting does not permanently lock the front and rear wheels. Ford likely assumed customers looking for a vehicle with capabilities similar to the Explorer would be turned off by the all wheel drive label. In fact, they must still feel the same way, as a visit to Ford’s official website lists the current Escape as having “Intelligent 4WD” while the Lincoln MKC, which sits on the same platform and uses the same powertrain, features “Intelligent All-Wheel Drive.”
The takeaway here is that the Escape faced the very real issue of being overshadowed by the Explorer. Ford’s little trucklet partially solved this problem by pretty much becoming the Explorer, at least in looks. Seems like the designers at Ford simply put the Explorer in the microwave for about ten seconds to get that rounded look. They also made the wheel arches more prominent and added copious amounts of body cladding to the rocker panels and the front and rear bumpers. The tailgate even gained some muscle, with the area beside and below the recessed license plate housing receiving artful protrusions.
Dimensionally speaking, the Escape also did pretty well for itself. With a 70.1″ width and 69.1″ height, the Escape was .1″ thinner and about two inches taller than the second generation Explorer. Those are absolutely crucial measurements that visually minimize the deficit in wheelbase and overall length that the Escape has in comparison to the Explorer, at least from certain angles.
The interior of the Escape also put up some very competitive numbers. At 33 cubic feet, the area behind the second row was larger than the CR-V, which measured in at an even 30, despite the Honda having a slightly longer wheelbase and 4.6 inches more in total length to work with. Ford trailed the Honda in rear legroom by about a foot and cargo space with the seats down by four cubic feet.
Out on the road is where the Escape (and Tribute) really shined. Car and Driver evaluated a Duratec-equipped XLT in July 2000 and immediately fell in love. How much did they enjoy their time with the Escape?
The Escape’s relatively conventional independent suspension offers an excellent compromise between a smooth ride and crisp handling. The Escape lacks the tipsy feel and twitchy steering that have long afflicted the Explorer; that steering, although quick, never seems abrupt. The brakes, in the one-word description of tester Frank Markus, are “phenomenal.” The ABS-equipped front-disc, rear-drum binders halted the 3550-pound Escape from 70 mph in just 171 commendably undramatic feet–besting all other production SUVs we’ve tested. The last Nissan Xterra we tested took 199 feet, and we thought that was an acceptably short distance.
Right out of the gate the Escape successfully crawled out from the shadow cast by the Explorer and made up lost ground by being competitive with the models that arrived several years earlier. In 2001 the Escape beat out the CR-V to become the number one selling vehicle in its class with 164,184 units sold. The Explorer saw sales drop by 30,000 units versus its all-time high in 2000.
By 2005, the year of our featured Escape, there were a couple of tweaks to the front end, and the 2.0 was replaced with Mazda’s 2.3 four, which put out 153 horsepower and 155 Ibs. torque. There was also the addition of the Limited trim level, with niceties such as heated seats, a reverse sensing system, and the 300 watt MACH audio system with 6 CD disc changer. A floor shifter also replaced the steering column setup of earlier models.
More notably, the Escape family welcomed the Hybrid model, a first of its kind vehicle for the class and for Ford. Mercury gained an Escape variant with the Mariner, which ditched the body cladding completely and gained a more softer, luxurious appearance.
My personal experience with the first generation Escape was in junior year of high school, when my best friend at the time decided his 1997 Sable wasn’t cool enough for him. While I benefited from his fickle automotive tastes with the acquisition of the Mercury, I also became intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the four year old Escape he purchased for about $10k. The Chrome Yellow XLS with the Duratec V6 was definitely a great choice for younger drivers back in the mid-2000’s, with its good looks and ample space. And the power. Like Poe Dameron’s experience with a TIE fighter in The Force Awakens, I was surprised with how quickly the Escape got up to speed. Yeah, that thing really moved.
While the little crossover excited with its good looks and nimbleness, inside things weren’t so fantastic. Aside from the steering wheel and dashboard, Ford definitely did a little cost cutting with the door panels and window switches, both of which felt a bit cheap. The column mounted shifter became comically obtrusive once you put the thing in drive by blocking about half the audio controls for the driver. The seats were not designed for long road trips, especially the back ones, and we found this out the hard way. But none of these things mattered when the volume was turned up because the Escape’s base 80 watt, four speaker audio system absolutely rocked. This sounds like hyperbole, but Ford must have known that many younger drivers would have wanted a good stereo in their car and tuned it accordingly.
Sixteen years after the introduction of the Escape, Ford lacks a subcompact crossover and a mid-size pickup. We’ll probably see the debut of both those vehicles before the decade is out, but until then the competition has a head start on Dearborn. But if the past is any indication, those new entries will be worth the wait.
Fashionably late but ends up being very popular, we should all be so lucky.
One place it did make some inroads was being almost as popular with people with dogs as Subarus are.
I think Ford did a good job with the design of the Escape, as well as the Tribute. They have aged well in my opinion. It was nice that you could get a 5-speed manual in the Escape, even if hardly anyone bought one.
Also, the later Hybrid versions have done very well as taxis in places like NYC, according to some articles I’ve seen. That is good testimony as taxi fleets don’t accommodate unreliable vehicles.
In 2002, we were ready to get rid of the 1999 Stratus. I already was driving a 1996 Ford Ranger, and it was always the plan to replace the Stratus before the warranty ran out.
Anything we would buy would be Wifey’s car, so she had full say in what she wanted. Of course, the first car we looked at was a PT Cruiser, but wisely concluded it was too small for our needs, plus I no longer trusted anything by Chrysler.
Next: The Ford Escape. We test-drove a 2002 model and found it quite comfortable, but hearing of some issues and my experience driving the Ranger with the A/C on and the lack of power the 4 cylinder provided and a V6 possibly being a gas hog, nixed that option.
We settled on the 2002 CR-V. Wifey hasn’t been disappointed, either, though I never would have wanted one for my car. Still don’t.
That being said, her oldest brother bought an Escape and it turned out to be a fine vehicle. I got to drive it often, and the comfort of the seats made the CR-V’s seats feel like park benches! I don’t recall what issues the early models had, but I still like the original Escape design. Now? Meh,,, jellybean like everything else. All these Fords look alike: Escape, Focus and Fiesta. I dislike them all, including the Focus we just had as a rental in Florida last week.
I can honestly add the original Escape to my relatively short list of Ford vehicles I liked!
I always liked the looks of this first generation Escape (and its Tribute/Mariner siblings), far more so than the second generation. The Escape quickly became and has remained a hit for Ford, and the first generation’s importance should not be overlooked, something you’ve done a great job of conveying. The first generation Escape definitely had some cheap bits to the interior, but I actually found this far more prevalent in the second generation Escapes.
My own personal experience with the first generation Escape is in the fact that it was actually the car I took my road test for my drivers license in. My cousin went to the RMV with me and we had to use his then-girlfriend’s (now wife) seafoam green 2006 Escape because he had a manual Solara and my mom’s Highlander did not have a center hand brake (required in MA for the road test). So technically the Escape is the first car I drove in as a licensed driver.
Does the RMV still have that rule? Ten years ago that seems like a fairly strict policy. These days its patently absurd, especially given how many new cars now have electronic E-brakes. Curious what their reasoning is for such a requirement.
As to your thoughts about the second gen Escape, I think you’re definitely right, but what saves that era interior is its aesthetic qualities. Those Escapes had very nice interior lighting, as I recall it was an ice blue.
The reasoning is so that the tester can apply the brake no matter what you are doing.
Great writeup Brendan. It was new to me that the Escape was on a Mazda platform. I had always thought it was a reworking of the Contour platform. Given the failure of that car to hold on to the Tempo buyer and the inability to lure the import buyer. I wonder if it would have been better to let the Tempo soldier on with a refresh and let a portion of the massive Contour investment to bring an Escape sized CUV to market in 1994. Chevy/Geo/Suzuki of course already had their offerings, but only played to a niche market. At least then the title of your piece could have reflected being early to the party.
“Great writeup Brendan” – I think you meant Edward. 🙂
The featured Escape is identical to one I had as a rental back in 2001. A work function flew me to Detroit where I rented the Escape for the remainder of my trip to Kalamazoo.
It was a well loaded XLT model. The V6 made terrific power, the column mounted gear selector seemed a few inches too long, and it was pretty decent for what it was. The one downside? The seats were awful, something I’ve never experienced in any other vehicle, yielding a very painful lower back. I was in my late 20’s at the time, for reference.
Having driven several others since, only has the current Escape / Kuga overcome that shortcoming.
Otherwise, these are dandy vehicles.
Some friends of ours have a 2nd-gen Escape; the front seats seem ok (but not great) but the back seat is patently uncomfortable. I do wonder why it took them so long to figure that out; for a back seat in particular it shouldn’t be that hard!
Your supposition about the Tribute/Escape being a byproduct of fords increase in equity is correct. I don’t recall the platform code but there was an active program within ford light truck to develop such a vehicle. It was in the initial design stages. After it was announced, the boys and girls working on the project were told to bundle everything up and ship it to Hiroshima. Far as they ever heard in Dearborn, the package was never unwrapped, much less discussed with the folks in Dearborn; some were a bit pissed about that.
Although I lost a prospective project, it didn’t bother me at all, the U204 (IIRC this was the Tribute program code) was a good effort by Mazda and I eventually had a lot of work in Hiroshima on the Mazda 3 program.)
Nice write-up, Edward! Your description of the V6 variety made me think I missed something. I drove the 4 cylinder version for a few miles because my SIL was not happy with the noise it made. I found out the tires were worn unevenly and the tire guy said he could not align the camber….
Anyhow, I did not like the driving position and the limited space compared to the minivan I owned at the time. And I still don’t like the an SUV for my kind of transportation needs. However, I find them excellent for those who live in the boonies.
We bought a used 2002 Escape V6 XLT from Hertz in December 2003. The Escape:
1) Was quick off the line
2) Had tippy handling
3) Had so-so fuel mileage
4) Had Lots of interior room
5) Had not so good front seats (agree with Jason). The rear seats were pretty good.
We gave it to my Mom after an accident where her Eagle Summit Wagon was totaled and she drove it until 2013. She loved it other than the gas mileage.
A nice writeup on a car I have not thought much about. When these came out, I was very out of the new car market and they were too small for our situation in any case. In hindsight, they were attractive little vehicles. My one quibble, there was waaay too much gray plastic on these, especially on the front. Darker colors disguised it a bit, but it looked terrible on the lighter ones.
The Escape has continued to sell well for Ford for a long time, and seems to have made for quite a few satisfied customers – something that American companies have not always been able to take for granted in recent years.
They can’t be all bad. There are a plenty of them still on the road after all these years.
In Oct. 2012
We ordered a all new body style 2013 Escape SE after reading and seeing pictures.
We never drove one before placing the order at a local dealership “none had been delivered yet” It’s equipped with a 1.6 4cyl Turbo, We are still super happy with our decision. It took 7 weeks for delivery.
My overall review is….
Sharp looking in Silver, X-lent driver with plenty of power for my driving style, I average 33mpg on hwy. and 23 around city. The seats are comfortable and I really like the 6 Spd. AT “sporty”
Last Jan. we purchased a new 2016 Subaru Outback Premium model as a second vehicle. I like to drive the Escape most days. The Subaru is, I’ll say more luxury with a CVT trans. versus the Sportier, Peppier Escape which has a slightly firmer ride and better handling. Plus we still like the body and interior style.
If I recall correctly, the Escape may have been Ford’s second best selling North American vehicle after the F-150 in the 2012 model year. If not second best, certainly very important as its sales not only NEVER declined during the recession and gas price spike, but actually increased EVERY year, breaking the quarter million mark in 2012, likely drawing a lot of volume from the Explorer.
I do recall that Ford executives were quite nervous about breaking the basic Escape formula with the introduction of the C platform based 2013 Escape, and allowed the older version to stay in the pipeline for a short while until the C was established. As it turned out, they didn’t have much to worry about as the C platform rode the car-like CUV wave to annual sales of about 300,000 units.
Used versions of Escapes have been extremely popular among high school students in my area, providing a strong secondary market for these.
Perhaps most interesting in this post, as well as the Wiki article I read this morning on the Escape is the discussion of what, exactly, is a “generation” of a vehicle?
Prior to this morning, I’d have told you that there have been two generations of the North American Escape. The CD2 platform for 2001 to 2012, and the C platform for 2013 to current. I honestly didn’t notice the reskinning the Escape got for 2008. I would have called that vehicle a mid-cycle refresh. Wiki also calls the 2008-2012 version a second “generation.”
It’s an interesting concept what constitutes a “generation.” We here at CC will generally regard the 1965 – 1970 full-size Chevrolet as a “generation.” Considering that these cars had major trim and interior changes every year, major sheet metal changes every two years, and constant powertrain and chassis refinements, the 1970 car seemed practically unrelated to the 1965. The typical ’65 was a 327 V-8, two-speed Powerglide with power steering and manual four wheel drum brakes. The typical 1970 car was a 350 / 350 THM 3 speed with power front disc brakes and power steering. The ride, drive, interior and body were night and day different from the ’65.
These are pretty good vehicles in my experience. My aunt has owned 3, one of each “generation”, and all were reliable and comfortable, if not super exciting to drive.
I looked at these for a minute in the early 2000s, as a potential replacement for my Volvo 245. I was one of those 10%-ers that was looking at the 4-cylinder, FWD, stick shift model.
Local Ford dealers offered the XLS (base) model for $16,999 vs. the $18.5k sticker. Every dealer had one, so they could advertise the loss leader to get you into the door.
I thought it felt very flimsy and cheap for the price. I decided I didn’t want to or couldn’t “tote the note”, so I wound up with a 10-year-old, stick shift, Plymouth Voyager for $1000.
First off, fantastic job on the article, this is definitely a story worth telling and you did a great job of it IMO.
A few nits to pick however 😉
I think no discussion of the gen 1 Escape can be complete without mentioning the totally disastrous CD4E transmission. Plenty of dissection has been done, transmission shops know these things all too well most rebuilt units available for sale have been slightly re-engineered to be longer lasting.
The uniqueness of the AWD system is actually the extra bit of engineering provided by mazda, the viscous coupling has a few tricks up its sleeve, but not enough to really get it to function much differently than a more run-of-the-mill unit:
“In the “4×4 Auto” mode, 100 percent of the torque is sent to the front wheels until a wheel slips. When that happens, a rotary blade coupling (RBC) generates enough pressure to activate a multiplate clutch, like that found in an automatic transmission, which sends torque (as much as 100 percent of it) to the rear. At the heart of the RBC is a “fan” with three blades in a chamber filled with a silicone fluid like that used in viscous couplings. The fan is shaped kind of like the warning symbol for radiation. When the front wheels slip, this fan spins through the fluid, heating and expanding it, which generates the pressure to activate the clutch. Then the clutch–not the viscous fluid — bears the burden of transmitting the torque.
When set to “4×4 On,” an electromagnet energizes a small clutch pack, locking a ball ramp to the input shaft. Now when the front wheels spin, they turn the ball ramp, which overrides the RBC and pressurizes the same multiplate clutch pack. In the “4×4 On” mode, the rear axle is engaged quicker and more securely. The front and rear axles are, however, never locked together, except during front-wheel slippage. That way, there is never any crabbing or binding in tight turns, and there’s no need for a center differential.”
Finally, “Ford definitely did a little cost cutting with the door panels and window switches, both of which felt a bit cheap” is one heck of an understatement IMO. The whole dash is really nasty cheap plastic, the console, the door cards, etc. All rock hard and hollow sounding.
My overall impression of driving a fellow interns’ 110k mile ’01 V6 was that it held the road well, made very good power. Interior was really awful, but was roomy. Overall it is a very utilitarian and useful size/shape, easy to get in and out of to boot.
“Finally, “Ford definitely did a little cost cutting with the door panels and window switches, both of which felt a bit cheap” is one heck of an understatement IMO. The whole dash is really nasty cheap plastic, the console, the door cards, etc. All rock hard and hollow sounding.”
I believe, though, that a hard simple interior is actually fairly well liked by the buyers of these vehicles. It obviously helps with the initial price point, and these are pretty low maintenance – a little Windex and a towel and you can clean it up easily.
The trick is how the plastic holds up in the face of fading, light scratches, or outright cracking when cold or stressed. On these points, my experience has been that Ford products typically don’t hold up as well as some competitors.
Dave my ’96 4Runner has held up every bit as well or probably better than an Escape of this genertion, and it has soft vinyl on most touch points, a likewise easy cleanup with some generic interior vinyl cleaner and a cloth. I agree that cost was likely a factor. But to compare more apples to apples, a CRV or Rav4 with a similar price point have a much better feeling interior in terms of materials.
One of the noteworthy features of the Escape’s automatic transmission was that it was designed so that it could be towed with the drive wheels in contact with the pavement. Unfortunately, in practice, this didn’t turn out to be the actual case, and I seem to recall that more than a few towed Escapes ended up needing their transmissions replaced.
Another gremlin that appeared early was that the new, plastic intake manifold didn’t seal well, gas fumes would seep through the gasket and enter through the vehicle’s vents upon start-up. I don’t know if Ford ever managed to fully cure that one.
Nice write-up on a significant vehicle, one that really created the momentum for CUvs among the domestics.
In Eugene, a decidedly non-domestic leaning market, the hybrid Escape was quite popular, as it was the only thing of its kind. The Prius was of course very big here, but if one wanted some rough/off road capability, or at least the impression of it, the Escape hybrid was it.
The Escape hybrid was a pretty big deal when it came it, given that Ford chose an SUV to premier it in. And it was the only thing of its kind. It also became the default car for Democrat politicians, as it was both a domestic and hybrid. I remember Hillary had one, among others.
But it seems like most of those buyers hereabouts ended up with Subarus next time around. And nowadays, the current generation Escape is decidedly uncommon here.
Never driven one, and for that matter, I can’t remember ever being in one. But it was an attractive package, generally speaking.
The Escape Hybrid started replacing Crown Vics as NYC Taxis quite a few years back. As an ex-Manhattanite I used to hate ending up with one because the Plexiglas partition between driver and rear seat was so intrusive that at 6’3″ I’d end up with my knees in my ears. The ride, however, was no less harsh, and probably less so even than that of the Crown Vics. I chatted with a driver once during a particularly lengthy trip from downtown all the way to Washington Heights, and he spoke well of the Escape for driveability. He was zipping in and out of traffic quite nimbly and he loved the quick pickup. The only thing he’d say about reliability was that when they went down they were down for a long time in comparison to the older Panthers, but I’d think that’s be the case with any newer model, as they must have stockpiled eons worth of spare parts to get the old Crown Vics back on the road within 5 minutes of a breakdown.
One of my favorite tidbits about the Escape Hybrid was how the batteries were constructed. It seems Ford used a series of long tubes which held a bunch of individual D-cell battery sized rechargeable cells.
To me, this theoretically meant you could change out the individual cells with actual D-sized batteries. Of course, you wouldn’t go for very long but, hey, if you could get Energizer batteries for cheap. Ironically, not too long ago, there was a SNL commercial that parodied this exact thing with a new Mercedes EV.
Timing doesn’t quite work for Clinton:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/01/27/hillary-clinton-last-time-i-drove-was-1996/
Obama had one traded a v8 300 for it.
As Paul mentions about Eugene, here in the fairly domestic-averse SF Bay Area the Escape was and remains a common sight on the roads, with a non-trivial number of first gen’s being Hybrids (both Ford and Mercury branded). I have put a fair number of miles behind the wheels of at least four rental first gen Escapes, all on multi-day trips, and found them very pleasant, comparing very favorably to my Forester, except in the power train department. Of course, my Forester was a turbo 5 speed. As I think about it now, I’m pretty sure these Escapes are the only crossovers I’ve driven other than a mile or two in a friend’s Hybrid Highlander. I also had a brief ride in a Taiwanese Escape, though it may have been Mazda Tribute badged.
I had 10 of the 2001 -2002 model year my sales fleet. All 6 cylinder models. 9 blew transmissions before 100,000 miles. One spun a crank bearing twice and it was the most babied and lowest mileage unit of them all! At 33k the dealer replaced the engine (we had to split the cost). 3k miles later, bam, it spun another bearing. Oil level was always dead on. changed every 5k and we used the recommended oil. Ignition coils also failed on 65% of ours.
I was a Ford salesperson when the Escape was first introduced, and they were indeed quite a hit. They really hit a nice spot between price and utility while being reasonably stylish and comfortable for the times. Almost all that we sold were the XLT AWD with the 3.0 Duratec, and they could really go, which was a big selling point vs. RAV4 and CRV, especially for male buyers.
I left auto sales at the end of 2000 go back to school, and got a job a year later which required extensive travel throughout New England. So I bought a 2001 XLT AWD, and was for the most part pleased with it. Under normal circumstances it drove well and had plenty of power, and never gave me any major trouble.
One exception to that… There used to be a bridge on the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut which instead of having an asphalt surface had a steel grid deck. The first time I drove over that at about 55 MPH was absolutely terrifying, it would just not stay straight and I felt like I had no control whatsoever. This was with the new factory tires. On subsequent trips over that bridge, I would move to the right, turn on the hazards, and slow down to 40 MPH, and even then it was frightening. No car before or after behaved that way, and the bridge has since been replaced.
Certainly the interior quality was not great, although I felt the leather power seat was comfortable. “Hollow” is a great description of how it felt to open and close the door…the black colored part in the center of the dash and even the column mounted gearshift felt very cheap as well. But to be fair, high grade plastics were not in great abundance in most cars of this class at the time. So, not perfect but not a bad vehicle for the money at all.
“Introduced in Japan in 1993, Toyota had a bit of a head start by essentially creating the compact crossover segment.”
Really? I thought Suzuki managed this by accident with its Sidekick/Vitara, starting in 1988.
My understanding is that the Vitara/Sidekick were based on a platform that didn’t fully qualify as unibody.
While the first Vitara/Sidekick may or may not have been unibody, it was still a RWD-based 4×4 with a low-range transfer case, so very much an SUV and not a CUV.
Sidekicks/Vitaras are most definitely a traditional Body on Frame layout. Similar sized outside perhaps, but significantly more cramped inside, and overall just different animals. Astounding offroad though!
The Vitara changed to a unibody in the new for 2005 generation but was still a ‘proper’ SUV, and since 2015 has moved to a fwd platform.
Certainly the Suzuki and Daihatsu small 4x4s created the market segment that was quickly overtaken by small CUVs from RAV4 onwards.
I owned a V6 AWD version a short while. Gas hog, cramped cabin, seat dreadfully uncomfortable after 90 mins. I was deeply disappointed. Bleh.
Alright, my car finally made it onto Curbside Classic! Okay, so it’s a 2001 Tribute.
150K miles and no mechanical issues beyond some electrical gremlins at 115K. The V6 AWD model is rated for 22 MPG highway (I think), but conservative driving on 65 mph highways (about 60-70% of my driving) gets me 25.5. Either way, it’s loads better than the full-size pickups I was used to before. The AWD has never gotten me stuck, although I’ll admit that the ground clearance alone is probably sufficient for the little off-roading I do.
Mine is an ES model, top-of-the-line with every option except heated seats (which is kind of a bummer in MN winters). The interior is plasticky, and wind noise is an issue on the interstate, but no more than any other Mazda or Ford from the same era. The column shifter is kinda long, but it does give the hand a place to rest while adjusting the stereo. The outside door handles are actually the same as on the Ford Focus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFp7atlOwI
“What a fun name…may I test drive?”
Great write up, these were and still are everywhere. I always thought this was a great looking little suv although I’m not sure if I ever drove one. I rode in a few in NY (taxis) and a friend may have rented one at one time or another but that’s it. I do recall being at the Detroit auto show when it was introduced and it was absolutely mobbed with people.
Funnily enough as I am reading this while sitting in the car waiting for my son’s football practice to end, guess what’s parked in front of me? That’s right, an Escape Hybrid. Instant CC effect.
I bought a ’05 XLT Escape V6 with 4WD when I was transferred to upstate New York. Being from the south, this was the wisest auto purchase to date.
As stated above, it had plenty of room (held 5 and camping equipment for trips to Pennsylvania), no slip or slide in the snow and muck (usually the first to arrive at the office on a snow day), plenty of power (original spark plugs when sold at 220k miles), very sturdy (survived auto accident with $7k of damage, and still ran the car for 2+ more years with no issues, squeaks, or water leaks).
Only issues were that the front rotors had a tendency to warp at 60-70k mile intervals (replaced twice during ownership) and bit of a fuel hog (best of 21 MPG). Finally gave up the car because I hand returned to the south and the A/C was busted. Also, the tin worm was coming to the surface from all the NY Thruway salt.
I replace the ’05 with an ’12 Limited Escape because this was the last year with the V6. However, I don’t find it as fun to drive as the XLT.
Note: For some reason, I refuse to turn in my E-Z Pass, worthy of a CC in itself. The E-Z Pass is a requirement if you drive anywhere in the North East or parts of the Mid West. It sits on the other side of my rear view mirror with my Florida Sun Pass. For some reason, but I do miss the snow.
“the Escape’s base 80 watt, four speaker audio system absolutely rocked. This sounds like hyperbole, but Ford must have known that many younger drivers would have wanted a good stereo in their car and tuned it accordingly.”
Is this sarcasm? Because the first thing I did with my then new Focus was ditch that crappy ass 80 watt factory head unit and the cardboard speakers…
It’s entirely possible they have different speakers, and yes, the sound system was surprisingly good.
“No doubt Ford and Mazda saw the RAV4 with envious eyes…”
Those first gen RAV-4’s would be called “way too small” by Ms. CUV buyer today. Escape seemed more truck-ute like than the Pokeman-ish RAV4 too.
Good article on an interesting vehicle that I consider a Focus on stilts. When I left the Southern Tier in 2012 Escapes were starting to become beaters, rust apart, and I was able to find a few at Horseheads Pick-a-Part. One of those times when I felt older than I really was.
For those who are Ford fans or just buy domestic vehicles the Escape was a nice alternative to the Tracker and Jimmy from what I saw in New York. I do not notice many Escapes in the Portland, OR area let alone hybrids and wonder why the current generation Escape is not offering a hybrid? I thought it was interesting that the 2008-2012 Escape was boxier than its predecessor.
The Escape was sold in Australia I think only as the V6-auto initially, which was fairly unique in the segment then even if the column shift was unusual. There was a facelift in 2006 which is when they probably introduced the 2.3L four, and towards the end the V6 was dropped.
IIRC, the RHD ones were all made in Japan by Mazda and the LHD ones were all made in US by Ford. Not sure what factor that’d have on quality or materials, but it’d at least make sure that shoppers don’t encounter drastically different pieces on “the same” vehicle within their market.
Another one of those vehicles that were seemingly owned by half the population, though that might have been since the first and second generations were so similar at a glance. I know at least two different people who bought first-gen examples and then, after a few (presumably happy) years, traded them on second-gen examples, so it seems that there were more than enough virtues to generate repeat buyers.
I still see a lot of the older ones on the streets, and I see plenty of the newer ones too, but I don’t know if I see as many. Not sure if the competition is just stiffer these days, or if it was a mistake to go from a truckish “mini-SUV” styling idiom to the “tall Focus wagon” current design. I do know that, despite being potentially in the market for this type of vehicle in the near future, it’s not on our list of candidates–that’s partially due to my wife’s distrust of American vehicles in general (it will primarily be hers) but also partially due to the fact that the current one does nothing for me stylistically. These older ones had a more distinctive look.
These created quite a storm when they came out. Personally I thought the Tribute was much better looking, and strongly considered one in 2001 when I finally chose the Trooper. Discounts on the Trooper were so strong that the prices were similar; it didn’t hurt that the Escape/Tribute were new and hot and there was little discounting.
I thought the Gen II Escape got better looking but the Tribute did not. Interiors across the board improved with the console shifter. I fancied a Mariner Hybrid for a while…that and the Tribute hybrid are your white whales…
I’ve only realized just now how similar these are to the 2004-on Aussie Ford Territory. I’d always thought the Tezza was a clean design, but now I see it’s basically a blown-up Mazda.
The Territory is Falcon based and the lower control arms @2k a piece arent quite u to it lus it has the excellent v6 diesel from psa as an option,
A friend had an early Escape and aside from an alarming thirst was quite a good car
Yeah, I meant visually it’s a blown up Mazda, not technically! Posted too early in the morning/not enough coffee. I saw a nice diesel just yesterday.
I once owned a 2005 Mariner Premier, in black with the V6 (when the name didn’t immediately register with someone during a conversation, I would simply describe it is a Ford Escape wearing a tuxedo). Bought it pre-owned with about 34K miles. I thought it was a nicely-appointed ride, and unlike many others, I don’t recall the seats being unusually uncomfortable or hard on my lower back. Other than regular maintenance items, I never experienced any serious mechanical issues with it. It was still running quite well when I decided to replace it with 183K on the odometer.
I have a 2003 Escape XLT that I bought 8 years ago. It has given me good service with essentially no problems. New tires are not the fault of the car. This is likely the last car I will own, as I am nearing 80 and I drive less than 1000 miles per year, living in a small village in the mountains of Mexico. I like the car and figure that it will still be going strong when I am long gone.
I’m still driving my 2010 Escape Hybrid, purchased new as a leftover in December of 2010. It remains my favorite car that I’ve ever owned. Surprisingly good acceleration, and a nice tight turning circle. I drive it with the back seat down 99% of the time, and the cargo area with that configuration is downright enormous. It looks a bit long-in-the-tooth out there next to contemporary vehicles, but it’s never had a major mechanical problem, so I’m just going to keep driving it until one of us succumbs to old age.