FWD vs AWD for acceleration?

[spacemancraig]

Find a dealer nearby with one in stock and test drive for yourself. I don't have any more time to argue on the internet today over something that you could easily do something about yourself instead. There will always be skeptics, but the 2020+ 2.0L AWD Escape RIPS from a stop. Period. Maverick being a few hundred lbs chunkier might not be quite as fun, but still a joy for the most part. Maybe the gearing will make up some of the slack, don't know yet.

Sorry if it seemed like I was arguing, I loved my 2017 escape 2.0, it was a blast. I got it because my focus ST wasn't big enough for a carseat and the escape kept my inner "boy racer" satisified. I don't think they're slow, they're definitely fast enough to get in trouble and surprise people on the highway.

Again, don't mean to be arguing. I probably will test drive an escape this week because i'm considering switching my order from hybrid lariat FE to XLT 2.0 AWD with tow/fx4/copilot for the fun factor and resale.

edit: I know its 6pm on a sunday but I'm kinda buzzing. So I want to re-iterate that I hate "arguing on the internet" and that wasnt my intention

Sponsored

 

[Phil37]

As at least one other person has mentioned the AWD will beat the FWD from a standstill because of the added traction alone even if it weighs 160 lbs more. If you're just driving normal and don't need to get into a drag race at every red light changing green, don't go off road, don't tow, don't live in the snow belt then I'd say the FWD Maverick is all you will need.

 

[TS0323]

Appreciate the reply! This is ultimately the conclusion I came to. I'm very curious to see the actual FWD vs AWD acceleration from a standstill. The FWD Mazda3 is actually faster than the AWD Mazda3 despite the worse traction, so curious if that will be similar for the Maverick or not.
At the end of the day though, I'm more concerned with 5-60 than 0-60, so the FWD should be fine in any case for me.

 

[Ronaldo]

I have a hybrid XLT on order, but have been seriously considering switching to a 2.0L for a performance boost. From the tech specs, the FWD model is around 150 lbs lighter than the AWD. I live in the south and rarely go off-road, so I don't really need the AWD. Am I correct in thinking that the FWD should be slightly faster in ideal conditions?

Yes

 

[Brsbill]

Based on the 2.0 escape the 2.0 maverick will be a a little terror on the street.

 

[Nw_adventure]

The 4K package with lower final drive ratio will negatively impact your highway mpg. Great if you are towing, but if not you are spending more money upfront so that you can spend more money at every fill up. Just a crazy proposition

So a whole 100 more rpms will kill mileage to a noticeable degree ? lol

 

[JASmith]

As at least one other person has mentioned the AWD will beat the FWD from a standstill because of the added traction alone even if it weighs 160 lbs more.

Except not really though. A lot of people that haven't driven AWD vehicles before think that AWD = hard launches, when particularly on non-sports cars turbocharged vehicles without launch control, that's just not the case. A RWD 5.7 Charger will beat a AWD 5.7 Charger at the drag strip 99% of the time if both are stock.

For example, here is a video of a AWD Santa Cruz 2.5T launching, which actually have a lower boost thresshold and its peak torque much lower than the smaller 2.0T Ecoboost that relies more on boost to make power by virtue of its lower static displacement, and its normal foot down launch (they didn't want to prespool since its a DCT that's hard on the transmission) isn't anything special in spite of AWD because these are normal "take foot off brake and stomp on gas" launches and NOT brake boosts or launch control dumps:


The Bronco did brake boost since its traditional automatic, but it still wasn't THAT hard. But point is that on the AWD Bronco as well expect soft launches to where AWD makes virtually zero difference on most surfaces in a straight line when you are just flooring it from a stop sign or stop light without brake boosting, clutch dumping, or using software launch controls that generally aren't offered on non-sportscars. That's why even on the recent Kona N that in base format is available in AWD, Hyundai said they found the FWD was actually faster when making its high performance version of the vehicle with near 300hp.

 

[2twomaverick]

Fwd 2.0 should be faster in quarter mile time because it's almost 200 lbs lighter...imo...

 

[WesM]

Fwd 2.0 should be faster in quarter mile time because it's almost 200 lbs lighter...imo...

This is a pretty old thread, and no 0-60 times for the FWD 2.0, but numbers right now for stock units as tested by both MotorTrend and TFL are:

2.0 AWD 0-60: 7s
Hybrid FWD 0-60: 7.6s

 

[AnchorChain]

This is a pretty old thread, and no 0-60 times for the FWD 2.0, but numbers right now for stock units as tested by both MotorTrend and TFL are:

2.0 AWD 0-60: 7s
Hybrid FWD 0-60: 7.6s

Pretty sure people are showing 6.3-6.5 for most 0-60 times with AWD Ecoboost

 

[WesM]

Pretty sure people are showing 6.3-6.5 for most 0-60 times with AWD Ecoboost

Probably brake boosted and who knows what other mods. Some were even using 93 octane. I believe those 0-60 times from TFL and MT were not brake boosted. Since you cannot brake boost the hybrid, they wanted the tests to be fair/comparable.

Not arguing that the 2.0 can't be moded to go a lot faster, just that in stock form using the same fuel and not brake boosted, they are pretty close.

 

[AnchorChain]

Probably brake boosted and who knows what other mods. Some were even using 93 octane. I believe those 0-60 times from TFL and MT were not brake boosted. Since you cannot brake boost the hybrid, they wanted the tests to be fair/comparable.

no there are non brake boosted 6.5 sec times

 

[WesM]

no there are non brake boosted 6.5 sec times

Thats cool, maybe the hybrid will post even better numbers too then TFL or MT got.

 

[houselog442]

This is a pretty old thread, and no 0-60 times for the FWD 2.0, but numbers right now for stock units as tested by both MotorTrend and TFL are:

2.0 AWD 0-60: 7s
Hybrid FWD 0-60: 7.6s

Remember, TFL is in Boulder, CO where the elevation is over a mile high and they even say they lose a second in 0-60 time due to lower air density. The hybrid did a bit better because it starts out and is assisted by the electric motor, which is not affect by elevation.

 

[AutobahnSHO]

100,000 miles / 40mpg x $3 per gallon = $7500.

100,000 miles / 30mpg x $3 per gallon = $10000.

Not exact figures but that's a lot of difference, the savings on the Hybrid goes up if gas prices go up....

Sponsored