Ancira Nissan Compares 2017 Nissan Rogue VS 2017 Ford Escape Near Boerne, TX

Responsive image

2017 Nissan Rogue

Responsive image
VS

2017 Ford Escape

Safety Comparison

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests front crash prevention systems. With a score of 6 points, IIHS rates the Forward Emergency Braking optional in the Rogue as “Superior.” The Escape scores zero, and is rated by the IIHS as having no effective frontal crash prevention.

The Rogue (except S) offers an optional Around View® Monitor to allow the driver to see objects all around the vehicle on a screen. The Escape only offers a rear monitor and front and rear parking sensors that flash a light and beep. That doesn’t help with obstacles to the sides.

Both the Rogue and the Escape have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, front wheel drive, height adjustable front shoulder belts, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, daytime running lights, rearview cameras, available all wheel drive, lane departure warning systems, blind spot warning systems and rear cross-path warning.

A significantly tougher test than their original offset frontal crash test, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does 40 MPH small overlap frontal offset crash tests. In this test, where only 25% of the total width of the vehicle is struck, results indicate that the Nissan Rogue is safer than the Escape:

 

Rogue

Escape

Overall Evaluation

GOOD

ACCEPTABLE

Restraints

GOOD

ACCEPTABLE

Head Neck Evaluation

GOOD

GOOD

Peak Head Forces

0 G’s

0 G’s

Chest Evaluation

GOOD

GOOD

Hip & Thigh Evaluation

GOOD

POOR

Hip & Thigh Injury Risk R/L

0%/0%

0%/0%

Lower Leg Evaluation

GOOD

GOOD

Tibia index R/L

.46/.37

.47/.43

Tibia forces R/L

1.3/.6 kN

1.7/2.2 kN

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does side impact tests on new vehicles. In this test, which crashes the vehicle into a flat barrier at 38.5 MPH, results indicate that the Nissan Rogue is safer than the Ford Escape:

 

Rogue

Escape

 

Front Seat

STARS

5 Stars

5 Stars

HIC

69

110

 

Rear Seat

STARS

5 Stars

5 Stars

HIC

142

290

Spine Acceleration

51 G’s

54 G’s

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

For its top level performance in all IIHS frontal, side, rear impact and roof-crush tests, with its optional front crash prevention system, and its headlight’s “Acceptable” rating, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety grants the Rogue its highest rating: “Top Pick Plus” for 2017, a rating granted to only 46 vehicles tested by the IIHS. The Escape was not even a standard “Top Pick” for 2017.

Reliability Comparison

A reliable vehicle saves its owner time, money and trouble. Nobody wants to be stranded or have to be without their vehicle while it’s being repaired. Consumer Reports predicts that the Rogue’s reliability will be 34% better than the Escape.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2016 Initial Quality Study of new car owners surveyed provide the statistics that show that Nissan vehicles are better in initial quality than Ford vehicles. J.D. Power ranks Nissan 10th in initial quality, above the industry average. With 1 more problems per 100 vehicles, Ford is ranked 11th.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2016 survey of the owners of three-year-old vehicles provides the long-term dependability statistics that show that Nissan vehicles are more reliable than Ford vehicles. J.D. Power ranks Nissan 27th in reliability. With 31 more problems per 100 vehicles, Ford is ranked 31st.

Engine Comparison

As tested in Motor Trend the Nissan Rogue 4 cyl. is faster than the Ford Escape 1.5 ECOBoost:

 

Rogue

Escape

Zero to 60 MPH

9.1 sec

9.6 sec

Quarter Mile

17 sec

17.1 sec

Speed in 1/4 Mile

83.2 MPH

78.6 MPH

Fuel Economy and Range Comparison

On the EPA test cycle the Rogue Hybrid gets better fuel mileage than the Escape 1.5 ECOBoost:

 

 

Rogue

Escape

 

FWD

Auto

33 city/35 hwy

23 city/30 hwy

 

AWD

Auto

31 city/34 hwy

22 city/28 hwy

 

On the EPA test cycle the Rogue gets better fuel mileage than the Escape:

 

 

Rogue

Escape

 

FWD

2.5 4 cyl./Auto

26 city/33 hwy

21 city/29 hwy

2.5 4 cyl./Auto

 

 

n/a

23 city/30 hwy

1.5 ECOBoost/Auto

 

 

n/a

22 city/29 hwy

2.0 ECOBoost/Auto

AWD

2.5 4 cyl./Auto

25 city/32 hwy

22 city/28 hwy

1.5 ECOBoost/Auto

 

 

n/a

20 city/27 hwy

2.0 ECOBoost/Auto

Regenerative brakes improve the Rogue Hybrid’s fuel efficiency by converting inertia back into energy instead of wasting it. The Escape doesn’t offer a regenerative braking system.

To lower fuel costs and make buying fuel easier, the Nissan Rogue uses regular unleaded gasoline. The Escape with the 2.0 turbo 4 cyl. engine requires premium for maximum efficiency, which can cost 20 to 55 cents more per gallon.

Brakes and Stopping Comparison

The Rogue’s standard front and rear disc brakes are vented to help dissipate heat for shorter stops with less fading. The rear discs on the Escape are solid, not vented.

The Rogue stops shorter than the Escape:

 

Rogue

Escape

 

60 to 0 MPH

118 feet

126 feet

Motor Trend

Tires and Wheels Comparison

The Rogue has a standard easy tire fill system. When inflating the tires, the vehicle’s integrated tire pressure sensors keep track of the pressure as the tires fill and tell the driver when the tires are inflated to the proper pressure. The Escape doesn’t offer vehicle monitored tire inflation.

Changing a flat tire near traffic can be dangerous and inconvenient. The run-flat tires available on the Rogue can be driven up to 50 miles without any air pressure, allowing you to drive to a service station for a repair. The Escape doesn’t offer run-flat tires.

Suspension and Handling Comparison

For better handling and stability, the track (width between the wheels) on the Rogue is 1.3 inches wider in the front and 1.2 inches wider in the rear than on the Escape.

For better maneuverability, the Rogue’s turning circle is 1.1 feet tighter than the Escape’s (37.6 feet vs. 38.7 feet).

For greater off-road capability the Rogue has a greater minimum ground clearance than the Escape (8.2 vs. 7.8 inches), allowing the Rogue to travel over rougher terrain without being stopped or damaged.

Passenger Space Comparison

The Rogue offers optional seating for 7 passengers; the Escape can only carry 5.

The Rogue has 27.8 cubic feet more passenger volume than the Escape (126.5 vs. 98.7).

The Rogue has 1.7 inches more front headroom, .7 inches more front shoulder room, .6 inches more rear legroom and .7 inches more rear shoulder room than the Escape.

Cargo Capacity Comparison

The Rogue’s cargo area provides more volume than the Escape.

 

Rogue

Escape

Second Seat Folded

70 cubic feet

68 cubic feet

The Rogue’s cargo area is larger than the Escape’s in almost every dimension:

 

Rogue

Escape

Length to seat (2nd/1st)

33.5”/68.5”

33.6”/67”

Min Width

44”

40.4”

Ergonomics Comparison

If the windows are left down on the Rogue the driver can raise them all using the key in the outside lock cylinder; on a hot day the driver can lower the windows. The driver of the Escape can only operate the windows from inside the vehicle, with the ignition on.

The Rogue has a standard locking fuel cap with a remote release located convenient to the driver. A locking fuel door helps prevent vandalism, such as sugar in the tank and fuel theft. The Escape doesn’t offer a locking fuel door.

Recommendations Comparison

Consumer Reports® recommends the Nissan Rogue, based on reliability, safety and performance. The Ford Escape isn't recommended.

The Nissan Rogue outsold the Ford Escape by 7358 units during the 2016 model year.

© 1991-2016 Advanta-STAR Automotive Research. All rights reserved. Who We Are
Click here to view the disclaimers, limitations and notices about EPA fuel mileage, crash tests, coprights, trademarks, and other issues.