mmarshall

A Review of the all-new 2018 Ford EcoSport.

https://www.ford.com/suvs-crossovers...r-all-vehicles

IN A NUTSHELL: Inexpensive, simple, and versatile....the first American-nameplate entry into the subcompact-SUV/CUV segment.

















CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-3, Hyundai Kona, Jeep Renegade, Toyota CH-R (FWD), Fiat 500L/500X, Nissan Juke, the upcoming Nissan Kicks, and Kia Stonic (if Kia decides to market the Stonic in the U.S. market). The Chevrolet Trax is close, but in a slightly larger size-segment. The Mini Countryman (roughly) competes in size, but is substantially more expensive.


OVERVIEW:

Subcompact (B-class) SUVs are arguably the fastest-growing segment of the auto industry in the U.S. today...as witnessed by the explosion of new models in just the last two years alone, with more of them on the way. And there is, of course, a reason for that. They are generally inexpensive, they offer AWD for bad weather security, most (but not all) are reasonably space-efficient, they are relatively cheap to insure (though AWD can be more expensive to repair, which may be reflected in some policies), their trim outside dimensions are relatively easy to maneuver and park, and some of the better-designed ones (but, again, not all) have relatively good visibility out the windows. And,of course, they appeal to those drivers who like to sit up higher than what is typically found in sedans and couples....or who want more ground-clearance for deep snow. So, their exploding popularity was just a matter of time, and a number of automakers are scrambling to get their versions ready.

Enter Ford's representative....the all-new 2018 EcoSport (actually pronounced "Echo-Sport"). While all-new to the United States this year, the EcoSport, like its somewhat larger brother the Escape, was sold overseas (originally developed by Ford of India) for several years before Ford management decided to import it here. The EcoSport was developed on the subcompact B-Class Ford Fiesta platform.......the larger Escape/Kuga, of course, on the C-class Ford Focus platform. I liked the basic design of the EcoSport when I first saw it in pictures. Ford had one at last year's 2017 D.C. Auto Show (a sharp-looking bright blue one), out on the floor where we could all see it, but refused to unlock it. Another one was at this year's 2018 D.C. show...and again, they refused to unlock the floor-display version....on the excuse that it was a pre-production model (auto marketers can sometimes drive you up the wall). However, at the show, Ford did have a base-model, FWD, turbo-three-cylinder outdoors, on the show's test-drive circuit...so, I signed up for the test-drive and gave it a brief spin around the circuit....not long enough for a real test-drive, of course, but better than nothing....and Ford gave me a nice little $10 Starbucks card for my efforts (how did they know I liked the Starbucks French Roast LOL?). I also signed up, as I usually do, for Ford's $50 Mastercard offer for a dealer-test drive of any of their new products...figured I'd use it on an EcoSport at the dealer where, of course, I could get a much better test-drive.

The EcoSport, for the American market, comes in four basic trim-versions...the base S ($19,995), SE ($22,905), Titanium ($25,740), and SES ($26,740). S, SE, and Titanium versions come with a choice of FWD and an Ecotec 1.0L turbocharged in-line three-cylinder of 123 HP and 125 Ft-lbs. of torque, or AWD with a normally-aspirated 2.0L in-line-four of 166 HP and 149 ft-lbs. of torque. Top-line SES versions come only wth the four and AWD. All versions have a 6-speed automatic Select-Shift transmission. (with AWD, I did not think the N/A four, overall, was much more impressive than the FWD turbo-three, but more on that later).

For the dealership test-drive (I had already sampled the three at the auto show), I chose a version that I thought represented a good value for the average driver....an SE version with AWD and the four-cylinder, no package-options, with only the extra-cost $395 Ruby Red paint. It listed for between 25 and 26K, though Ford offers incentives on the EcoSport in some areas (see my price-spec below). It turned but to be an OK test-drive, but not quite as nice as I had hoped....this is not a particularly comfortable vehicle on the road, and, although there are some nice features features inside for the price, it's mostly just basic transportation. In other words, you basically get what you pay for....Details coming up.

MODEL REVIEWED: 2018 Ford EcoSport SE 4WD

BASE PRICE: $24,405


OPTIONS:

Ruby Red Paint: $395

DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $995 (a little too much, IMO, for a vehicle this size, but shipping prices may have gone up for 2018)

LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $25,795

(Ford is offering a $1750 rebate in some areas, such as on my test-vehicle, which brings the price down to $24,045)


DRIVETRAIN: AWD, Transverse-mounted, normally-aspirated 2.0L in-line four with Auto Start/Stop, 166 HP @ 6500 RPM, Torque 149 Ft-lbs. @ 4500 RPM, 6-speed Select-Shift automatic transmission.

EPA MILEAGE RATING: 23 City, 29 Highway, 25 Combined

EXTERIOR COLOR: Ruby Red

INTERIOR: Black Cloth (with standard heated seats).




PLUSSES (+) :

Excellent, sports-car-quick electric power steering.

Relatively smooth automatic transmission.

2000-lb. towing capacity, in spite of the rather weak 4-cylinder engine.

Small exterior size gives good maneuverability and easy parking.

Simple, easy-to-read gauges/controls.

Moderately-priced SE version includes some nice interior features.

Conservative body-styling gives relatively good visibility out the windows.

Excellent paint color choice (on some trim-versions).

Handy convex side-mirror blind-spot extensions.

Base S FWD versions quite low-priced.

Wide Ford dealer-network means sales and service at many close, convenient locations.



MINUSES (-) :

Rocking-Horse ride motions.

Engine vibrations lack refinement.

Significant road noise on coarse surfaces.

Neither version particularly fuel-efficient for this class.

Underhood layout somewhat tight.

Relatively poor gas/brake-pedal placement.

Munchkin-sized legroom in the rear seat.

Limited cargo space.

So-so stereo sound quality.

Cheap, thin-plastic Ford stalks/switchgear.

Tacky center-dash video-screen mount.

Overall build quality OK but not up to Japanese and Korean competitors.



EXTERIOR:

Although the EcoSport, on the outside, is more or less the same physical size as its B-class competitors, it is, in my opinion, more sensibly-styled than several of them. The (slightly) bulbous front end has the signature hexagonal grill and headlights shared with several other Ford products, and the windshield is highly-raked for aerodynamics. But, aft of the windshield, it is rather squarish, and the roofline is fairly high for good headroom and carrying tall items. The C-pillars are somewhat thick (probably for roll-over-safety), but, because of the way the rest of the rear windows are designed, don't impede too much outward visibility. As with many small SUVs, dark-colored cladding runs all along the lower-body and rear end to help protect the body and paint from sand and road-debris damage, though it is (curiously) missing from the upper parts of the wheel-wells. The very short rear-overhang, of course, with the rear seat up, strictly limits the amount of cargo that can be carried with the rear seat up (more on that later), but the roofline allows some tall items. The exterior sheet metal feels reasonably strong and solid, but the doors don't shut with quite as much of a solid think as some larger Ford SUVs. As for the exterior paint colors, the mid-line SE and Titanium models seem to offer the widest choice (and have some really nice rainbow-shades)...the entry-level S and top-line SES versions are more restricted.

Typical of other Ford products as well, on models without the yellow electronic blind-spot lights on the mirrors, the EcoSport uses small but handy and effective square convex mirror-inserts that widen the view and cover blind spots. This, IMO, is an excellent feature, and DOT/NHTSA should seriously consider making it a Federal Safety Standard on vehicles without the electronic blind-spot monitoring. Of course, it increases the cost of producing and assembling the mirrors, so perhaps that is why most automakers have eschewed it.


UNDERHOOD:

Open the rather small hood, and you must brace it with a manual prop-rod...which, for the price, is probably more or less expected. A relatively small, thin insulation-pad is on the underside of the hood. Underneath, the in-line-four cylinder, transversely-mounted, fits in pretty tight (but not the tightest I've seen), with not a whole lot room of to reach and/or work on engine components down the sides. A cheap-looking/feeling black plastic engine cover blocks some top-engine components. Dipsticks, fluid-reservoirs, and filler-caps, as with most vehicles, were generally easy to reach and use. One thing I distinctly liked on the turbo-three-cylinder, though, more than on the N/A four, was that the three comes with a genuine cast-iron block instead of the four's aluminum. Say what you will (and I know there are some people who disagree)...I'm not convinced that an aluminum block, even with the latest aluminum-alloy technology, can provide the same level of strength (at a heavier weight, of course), than cast iron. I haven't asked a Ford engineer to verify it, but I believe the reason Ford uses an iron block on the three is that its natural vibration level is somewhat higher with only three pots (although the four-cylinder isn't entirely free from vibration, either)....and the iron provides strength to endure both the vibrations and the added pressure/boost from the turbocharger.



INTERIOR:

The interior of the EcoSport is just about as simple, gimmick-free, and user-friendly as you will find in a vehicle of this class, although it is not without some quirks and questionable designs. The most obvious limitation, though somewhat typical of vehicle in this class, is a back seat that, even with its high roofline and adequate headroom under the sunroof housing, simply does not have the legroom for even moderate-sized adults.....consider this vehicle basically for two adults up front and two children (or packages) in the rear seat. The rear seat itself is also typical of vehicles in this class....meaning, essentially, a folding, moderately-padded park bench. There are a few soft-touch or fabric-covered interior trim-surfaces, particularly on the upper-end models (and some versions come with smart-looking copper-colored trim-touches)....but much of the interior and door panels are simple plastic. The small, upright, plastic center-dash-mounted video-screen looks like a tacky afterthought....and the stereo itself, in sound quality, IMO, was not up to that of most other vehicles I sample nowadays. And the stalks on the steering column were the usual cheap, flimsy, lightweight, matte-black plastic, from the standard Ford parts-bin, that you find not only on many Ford products today, but even on some Lincolns as well, except for the very newest ones.

But there is plenty to like inside as well, despite the cheapness of some of the materials. The general layout of the controls/buttons/switches is simple, user-friendly, and generally easy to operate. The big fan-speed and temperature-control ***** have a smooth, slick operation/feel, and the fan-speed itself is shown wth a row of rotating bar-lights on the ****-face itself. The main and secondary gauges, behind the steering wheel, are BMW-clear and simple in their design....no gimmicky bar-designs, heads-up, or electronic-digit stuff, though you can, of course, vary some of the information displayed inside the gauges with the mode-settings. The front seat (cloth on lower-line, and leather on up-market versions), is reasonably comfortable even for a person my size. The shifter, on the console, is well-designed in my opinion (more on that below). The emergency brake is a dated but effective pull-up lever on the console...and I almost had to use it in a test-driving emergency....also more on that below. The steering wheel is the typical Ford design with (IMO) and attractive spokes and the usual wheel-mounted controls. The dash, in general, avoids the overdone, somewhat disjointed look to its design that is found on its Fiesta and Focus sedan/hatchback cousins....I never cared for that look. An interesting way this vehicle is marketed is that a power moonroof and sun shade is standard on all but base S versions, though, for several reasons, I generally tend to eschew that feature myself on my own cars. But, for those who like them (and enjoy some fun in the sun).....you won't have to pay extra for it.



CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:

Open up the rear hatch, and the EcoSport's high, squared-off, conservative rear roofline does help with carrying some tall items, but, of course, with a vehicle this short, one needs to drop the rear seats for any significant cargo space. Keep the rear seats up, and you simply don't have very much space at all, high roof or not....though still better than that of a couple of more-radically-styled rivals with lower, more-swept rear rooflines. A Cargo-Management System included on some versions helps separate some cargo-items by tier. The rear hatch itself does not lift up, but swings outward,, like a door, to the left, on left-mounted hinges. Unlike on some Japanese rivals, where the door swings out to the right and makes one step out into traffic when parked on a right-hand curb, the left-swinging hatch is better-suited to countries like the U.S., where one normally drives and parks on the right. The trim materials used in the cargo area are not very plush, but one does not expect much of that in this vehicle-class. A cargo pull-cover, to hide things from prying eyes, is included on all versions, a nice touch. Want a real spare tire? Or even a temporary one? Sorry.....in the American-market versions, Ford gives you a can of Fix-a-Flat, even though the EcoSport was originally developed for countries with rough roads and poor driving conditions, where many customers demand real spares.




ON THE ROAD:

On all versions, start up both the turbo three and the four-cylinder with a start/stop button. Neither engine is particularly refined, and some pulsations/vibrations can be felt at idle, particularly when cold, though both engines smooth out a little when warm. Both are somewhat on the wimpy side with torque, though the four is slightly stronger than the turbo-three, and is somewhat (just slightly) more adaptable to the extra weight and drag of AWD.....indeed, the AWD is not available with the three. With the six-speed automatic (no manual is offered) both engines seem to make more noise than power, though the transmission generally shifts smoothly (somewhat jerky shifts were a common problem with Ford products for a number of years). I liked the shifter's simple, easy, fore/aft PRNDL motion without any gimmicks, though the silver release-button to get out of Park or Reverse is not always easy to find quickly....you sometimes have to grope for it by feel.
I'm not necessarily just picking on Ford here, either.....I also noted the same relative lack of power in the Honda HR-V that I sampled, where you had to be careful pulling out into fast-moving traffic. With the possible exception of the Nissan Juke (especially the high-performance NISMO version), manufacturers just don't put much power into B-class SUVs.

The chassis/steering, on the other hand, has both good and bad points. The very quick steering-response reminded me of some sports cars...to the point were it was almost darty. Electric power-steering pumps are notoriously lacking in driver-feel, but the Ford engineers have managed to build in some decent, if somewhat artificial, feel. No, it's not a last-generation BMW 3-series with the superb tactile-steering...but noticeably better than many of the electric-pump units I've sampled lately. The vehicle's small size and short overhangs allow for a nice short turning radius, good maneuverability, and relatively easy parking. Road noise was generally pronounced, especially on coarse surfaces...definitely not a luxury vehicle in this category, though wind noise was generally well-controlled. I found the ride characteristics to be a noted weak point. The suspension itself, helped by relatively high-profile tires by today's standards, was not particularly rough or harsh over bumps, but the short overhangs and (resulting) high unsprung-weight characteristics in the chassis produced some of the porposing/hobby-horse characteristics that were once prevalent in SUVs years ago. It wasn't all that bad, but still noticeable...your head and neck bob back and forth slightly under some road conditions. The brakes themselves were generally smooth and effective, but both the gas and brake pedal were rather poorly-located. The brake pedal is mounted high, slightly to the right, and the gas pedal is down in the resulting hole between the brake pedal and the side of the console....not exactly an ideal set-up for big, wide Men's-size-15 clown-shoes like mine. In fact, during the three-cylinder EcoSport test-drive at the auto show, I had to stop quickly to avoid the car in front of me, and my big foot DID get hung up a little between the gas and brake.....I got it on the brake pedal, just in time, before I was ready to yank the hand-brake lever up on the console with my right hand for an emergency stop.



THE VERDICT:

Given its inherent space-limitations and limited overall comfort, Ford has come up with a pretty nice addition to the B-class SUV market, although, like with its Fiat 500X competitor, I didn't think the overall build quality was quite up to the Honda HR-V I reviewed, or the also-new Hyundai Kona that I inspected at the D.C. auto show (but, of course, have to test-driven yet). No, this is no luxury vehicle, but then, vehicles in this class are not intended to be. They are generally useful, basic transportation with an AWD option for bad weather and some (but not much) more cargo-space than equivalent small sedans their size. In other words, what you see is what you get.

But that doesn't mean that the EcoSport doesn't need some improvement. Opinions, of course, may vary (and some views are subjective)...but, if it were my vehicles, I'd like to see a slightly less Bob-O-Matic suspension, the price dropped a little on the SE and Titanium versions with the sunroof not standard (people could still order it as an option if they wanted it), a lift-hatch in the rear instead of a swing-away gate, a better-looking video screen, and a somewhat less-tinny stereo. But the vehicle, as it is, is still a fun and practical little design, as long as you don't need to carry large adults or bulky cargo with the rear seats up.

And, as always......Happy car-shopping.

MM

Toys4RJill

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

No the Chevy Trax and Buick Encore were the first. And they are competitors to the EcoSport. They have a slightly larger total length all under 170", and basically the same wheelbase.

Trax
Wheelbase: 100.60 in
Total length: 167.20 in

Encore
Wheelbase: 100.60 in
Total length: 168.41 in

EcoSport
Wheelbase: 99.2 in
Total length: 161.3 in

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

I respect your view, but disagree with at least part of it. The Trax and Encore are slightly larger physically (6-7", in this size-range, is significant..it wouldn't be in a larger size-class). Both come wth a larger standard engine, and the Encore, being a Buick, has a far more plush/upscale interior than the EcoSport. There is simply no comparison.

Depends on what you call close. EcoSports start at just under 20K, Encores at just under 23K.

But, as I mentioned before, The Encore has a Buick interior, the EcoSport, entry-level Ford. The Encore/Trax also seem roomier inside.

With the Trax, you might (?) have an argument on price (around 1K or so difference in base price)...but you get more vehicle with the Trax.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Go back and look at what I actually posted. What you copied was what I accidentally got posted while I was still working on the figures.

Not IMO. And you, of all people, should know the difference.....you've seen the Encore and sat in it.

Compare THIS with an EcoSport LOL.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Well, perhaps (?) the EcoSport.....but the Encore was strictly European. It is a heavily-rebadged version of the Euro-market Opel/Vauxhall Mokka, with, of course, some Buick interior/trim/sound-deadening touches. Sells like hotcakes, though......far and away Buick's top-seller here in the U.S.

As far as the EcoSport being "junk" (in your language) just because it comes from Ford of India....only time will tell on its reliability, though, right off the bat, I didn't think it had quite as solid a feel in how well it was screwed-together as, say, a Honda HR-V or Hyundai Kona.

I do like its overall design, though...IMO, it's not an eyesore like the Nissan Juke or Toyota CH-R.

Toys4RJill

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Not sure bigger wheels would help it. The suspension already bobs up and down too much as it is, though the actual ride quality over bumps is not particularly stiff. Also, keep in mind that larger wheel wells, on this size/class of vehicle (and, to an extent, some of its competitors) would intrude even more into the already-small cargo area and underhood space.

mmarshall

Oh, definitely, it's also built there. The Chinese eat up anything with the Buick nameplate on it like it was rice LOL. But, it was originally developed by Opel, as the Mokka, in Europe, for the Euro-market.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Very much so

Trax $21,000
EcoSport $19,995
Encore $22,990


Physically larger in total length doesn't matter. The wheelbase is the same. That extra length comes mostly from extended bumpers. Numbers don't lie. Below is the EcoSport and Trax interior dimensions. It's the same thing. These are competitors. So they don't offer the same engine, big whoop, The Mustang with its 5.0, Challenger with it's 5.7, and Camaro with its 6.2 must not compete with each other either then by your reasoning. The denial needs to stop

EcoSport / Trax
Head room (in.)
First row 39.6 / 39.6
Second row 37.5 / 38.8

Leg room (in.)
First row (maximum) 42.9 / 40.8
Second row 36.7 / 35.7

Hip room (in.)
First row 51.6 / 51.7
Second row 50.9 / 50.7

Shoulder room (in.)
First row 53.3 / 54.1
Second row51.3 / 52.8

Toys4RJill