Childre Nissan Compares 2015 Nissan Rogue VS 2015 Ford Escape Near Atlanta, GA

Responsive image

2015 Nissan Rogue

Responsive image
VS

2015 Ford Escape

Safety Comparison

The Rogue SL offers an optional collision warning system, which detects an impending crash through forward mounted sensors and flashes a bright light and sounds a loud, distinctive tone to warn the driver to brake or maneuver immediately to avoid a collision. The Escape doesn't offer a collision warning system.

The Rogue SV/SL’s optional lane departure warning system alerts a temporarily inattentive driver when the vehicle begins to leave its lane. The Escape doesn’t offer a lane departure warning system.

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 and available all-wheel drive.

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

POOR

Restraints

GOOD

MARGINAL

Head Neck Evaluation

GOOD

GOOD

Peak Head Forces

0

0

Steering Column Movement Rearward

3 cm

10 cm

Chest Evaluation

GOOD

GOOD

Hip & Thigh Evaluation

GOOD

POOR

Femur Force R/L

1.9/.2 kN

13.55/2.68 kN

Hip & Thigh Injury Risk R/L

0%/0%

100%/0%

Lower Leg Evaluation

GOOD

ACCEPTABLE

Tibia index R/L

.46/.37

.9/.4

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 and into a post at 20 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

Into Pole

STARS

5 Stars

5 Stars

Max Damage Depth

15 inches

18 inches

Spine Acceleration

38 G’s

44 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, and with its optional front crash prevention system, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety grants the Rogue its highest rating: “Top Pick Plus” for 2014, a rating granted to only 48 vehicles tested by the IIHS. The Escape is not even a standard “Top Pick” for 2014.

Engine Comparison

The Rogue’s 2.5 DOHC 4 cyl. produces 2 more horsepower (170 vs. 168) and 5 lbs.-ft. more torque (175 vs. 170) than the Escape’s standard 2.5 DOHC 4 cyl.

As tested in Consumer Reports the Nissan Rogue is faster than the Ford Escape turbo 4 cyl.:

Rogue

Escape

Zero to 60 MPH

9.5 sec

9.9 sec

45 to 65 MPH Passing

5.8 sec

6.5 sec

Quarter Mile

17.3 sec

17.5 sec

Speed in 1/4 Mile

83.2 MPH

80.5 MPH

Fuel Economy and Range Comparison

On the EPA test cycle the Rogue FWD gets better fuel mileage than the Escape FWD with its standard engine (26 city/33 hwy vs. 22 city/31 hwy).

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 optional 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.

Passenger Space Comparison

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

The Rogue has 28.4 cubic feet more passenger volume than the Escape (126.5 vs. 98.1).

The Rogue has 1.7 inches more front headroom, .6 inches more front shoulder room, 1.1 inches more rear legroom and .6 inches more rear shoulder room than the Escape.

Cargo Capacity Comparison

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

Rogue

Escape

Third Seat Removed

39.3 cubic feet

34.3 cubic feet

Second Seat Folded

70 cubic feet

68.1 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

The Rogue’s driver’s power window opens or closes with one touch of the window control, making it more convenient at drive-up windows and toll booths. The Escape’s standard driver’s power window switch has to be held the entire time to close it fully.

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

The Nissan Rogue won two awards in Kiplinger’s 2014 car issue. The Ford Escape only won one award.

J.D. Power and Associates rated the Rogue first among compact suvs in owner reported satisfaction. This includes how well the vehicle performs and satisfies its owner’s expectations. The Escape was rated second.

© 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.