Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Spying: 2020 Ford Escape Sees the Light

      Why hello next-generation Ford Escape

    The Escape is an important model for Ford. Last year, the company moved 308,296 Escapes off dealer lots. But with the announcement last week that Ford will be focusing more on trucks and utility models in the coming years, the Escape will be playing a bigger role.

    Car and Driver obtained the first spy shots of the next-generation Escape, expected sometime next year as 2020 model. Due to the extensive use of camouflage on the mule, we can't tell much about the design. We're guessing the front end might look similar to the EcoSport partly due to the flat shape. The lone shot of the interior reveals an interior layout similar to the EcoSport and Focus with the infotainment system sitting on top of the center stack.

    The next-generation Escape is expected to move from the C1 platform to yet, an unnamed global platform that underpins the next Focus. This will address two shortcomings of the current Escape - poor crash test scores and not being able to fit a hybrid/plug-in hybrid powertrain.

    Powertrains are expected to include the 1.5 and 2.0 EcoBoost four-cylinders, and a hybrid powertrain. We wouldn't be surprised if a plug-in is also available.

    Source: Car and Driver

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    it looks honestly like the new one will be smaller and clipped at the knees just like they did with the Equinox.  Might not be a bad idea to look hard at a 2019 and all the discounts that go with it.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What I'm seeing is a larger scale version of the Focus Active, with its softer, lozenge look.  I guess they went that way to appease angry Ford sedan buyers, and they have room to feminize it since the Bronco and Maverick are coming to bring all the boys to the yard.

    Edited by ocnblu
    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

    What I'm seeing is a larger scale version of the Focus Active, with its softer, lozenge look.  I guess they went that way to appease angry Ford sedan buyers, and they have room to feminize it since the Bronco and Maverick are coming to bring all the boys to the yard.

    Name me at least three masculine looking CUVs that anyone here can buy right now.  Usually, it is the pickups and BOF SUVs that look the most masculine.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Name me at least three masculine looking CUVs that anyone here can buy right now.  Usually, it is the pickups and BOF SUVs that look the most masculine.

    Grand Cherokee is about all i can think of and that's still BOF, right? So that doesn't even fit the criteria.. Sooooo... Nothing. 

    There are some that I like but they're not masculine. 

    Cherokee Trailhawk might be the closest. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    52 minutes ago, frogger said:

    Grand Cherokee has always been unibody IIRC.

     

     

    Time to Google! 

    This is what Wiki got me:

    "The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a range of Mid-size SUVs produced by the American manufacturer Jeep. While some other SUVs were manufactured with body-on-frame construction, the Jeep Grand Cherokee has always used a unibody chassis."

    This is what Wiki got me:

    "The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a range of Mid-size SUVs produced by the American manufacturer Jeep. While some other SUVs were manufactured with body-on-frame construction, the Jeep Grand Cherokee has always used a unibody chassis."

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Name me at least three masculine looking CUVs that anyone here can buy right now.  Usually, it is the pickups and BOF SUVs that look the most masculine.

    Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, Land Rover Range Rover. 

    I think the current Explorer looks pretty masculine too.

    2018-Ford-Explorer-front-three-quarter.jpg

    Certainly no less so than a Tahoe or Expedition.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • How did their engineers find a way to offer both with great space? It is a large 'engine bay'.  At this point, even if I said that 2 cu.ft is nonexistent, if the Audi could offer a frunk that size, Cadillac should have done the same.  I have realized that  people associate EVs with frunks and this is why you and I (and I think @David too) might criticize Cadillac for a missed opportunity with the Lyric.    Forget about Silverados and Hummers, they gave the mid-engine Corvette a trunk and frunk when a mid-engined supercar, even as a Corvette, could have forgone a frunk, but they KNEW it would benefit Corvette because people EXPECT storage space in a Corvette.    GM missed the part that people ALSO expect frunks in EVs...  ESPECIALLY in the market that the Lyriq resides in.  yeah......that would be the proper wording. Its not a big deal by ANY means.  Just disappointing. 
    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...