Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





CR-V vs Escape

1273274275276278

Comments

  • EPA figurs are only meant as a tool to compare 2 vehicles. In "highway" driving, I beat the CR-V's EPA rating by 13%, but in my extreme city driving (average speed of about 15mph), I get 10-15% lower mileage. My '03 Toyota Corolla beat its EPA highway numbers as well, but in my city driving, it was almsot 30% below the EPA rating.

    For 2010 the CR-V is gaining 1mpg highway and city, and is expected to be a little quieter as well.

    It's clear we both prefer our respective vehciles.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,901
    "It's clear we both prefer our respective vehciles. "

    It is interesting about the interior room. When I shopped the Escape, I had to move the seat FORWARD because I had too much legroom for comfort. I am 6' tall. In the CR-V I did not have as much room, although there was more room in the rear of the CR-V.

    But as you said, we prefer our respective vehicles. For me the shape of the Gen3 and that ugly nose were deal killers.
  • It is interesting about the interior room. When I shopped the Escape, I had to move the seat FORWARD because I had too much legroom for comfort. I am 6' tall. In the CR-V I did not have as much room, although there was more room in the rear of the CR-V.

    But as you said, we prefer our respective vehicles. For me the shape of the Gen3 and that ugly nose were deal killers.


    The combined frot nand rear legroom numbrs are still higher for the CR-V, so even iff you could move hte front seat 1" further back, it would still have more total legroom. I do wish Honda had mounted it another 1/2" or 1" back. I wouldn't mind 1 more "notch".

    Funny, I had the same sentiments about Escape's front end. Well not ugly, jsut rather boring. The explorer styling just seems so tired. It just reminds me of the 1980 and 90's too much. WHich si unfortunalte because I know Ford makes dramatically better vehciles than it did in the 80's and 90's... actually most are now equal or better than the competition... but I don't want anything to remind me of it's ugly past. I actually preferrd the previous genration Escape styling bett.er I wish they would have just modernized it's headlights and grill rather than making it a mini explorer. But I think they wanted to futher seperate it from it's Mazda roots. Which is funny, because the best looking and best designed vehciles Ford has are based on Mazda or joint designs.

    The CR-V is a little unusual and awkward looking from some angles, but I love hte side and bakc profiles and styling.
  • I own a 2004 Ford Escape Limited. When my wife and I were shopping for her vehicle we test drove the CR-V as well from 2004. Its clear which SUV won. I also like the looks of the 2005-2007 Escape better then our 2001-2004 generation (front styling for the most part). The 2008 and up Escape is also nice but it "looks" a little bit less rugged and more gussied up bling-bling type of style. The current CR-V also looks very nice all around until you get to the front nose part...what was Honda thinking?? In fact what is Honda thinking in many of their vehicles when it comes to design?? Accord? It once used to be a very nice all around vehicle, perhaps a benchmark for family sedans, but now I beleive it lost by a lot on the styling department, the Accord is just plain ugly IMO. The Element is ugly, except for the SC model, the Pilot front end got slapped with the ugly stick as well. Also, the entire Acura line-up is just butt-ugly to nicely put it. Honda may still have the edge on fit, finish and reliability, but they are loossing ground big time in styling.
  • I had a choice between a 2007 Accord and the new arrival 2008 Accord a few short years back and preferred the 08 way more then the 07. Looks is of course are subjective and I can care less what others think of a front end looks or what ever, of any car, as long as I like it.

    As far as what was Honda thinking with the new style ? I think they are doing just fine. Others, many others for the numbers that buy them over some other brand, think the same way.

    ;)
  • I guarantee you that "most" of those buying the 2008 and newer Accord are buying them for the following reasons in no particular order:

    1. No choice if they want a brand new Accord
    2. Reliability reputation
    3. Because its a Honda
    4. Interior room
    5. Comfortableness

    I really doubt that the styling is high on their roster, because subjective or not there are many people (including myself) and professional reviews (Edmunds, KBB, Motor Trend, etc.) that think the styling of the current generation (frog eyed) Accords is a step backwards from the last generation instead of an improvement.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    actually a lot of the front end styling of the escape (other than the plasti-chrome) has to do with aerodynamics.
    look at the front end of a current Tahoe and the hybrid version.
  • I don't think Honda is losing ground big time in sales. Styling is subjective and those people who can't get past the G3 CRV front end are missing out in owning a superior class vehicle.

    Number one selling SUV in U.S. 3 years running. I guess sensibility is still guiding the buying public.
  • actually a lot of the front end styling of the escape (other than the plasti-chrome) has to do with aerodynamics.
    look at the front end of a current Tahoe and the hybrid version.


    Seriously? Making a vehcile more boxy, doesn;t enhance the aerodynamics. Reducing hte frontal area and smoothing surfaces so there are fewer sharp angles that create turbulence does.

    Most poeple don't realize that much of the improvement in aerodynamics comes from the underside and rear end, since optimizing the front end will impact impact protection and pedestrian collision requirements that Japan and Europe have.

    The Tahoe was just trying it update it's look.s Ford wanted theri Escape to look bigger, more like the Explorer, like a rugged SUV. Honda wanted the CR-V to be unique and look well, like a Honda and more car-like.

    Overall, I'd suspect the CR-V has a lower or equal ceofecient of drag as the Escape, but it's larger overall dimension will give it a larger frontal area.

    To better understand the relationship, consider a motorcycle... Many 600cc sportbikes with only 130HP at the crank can appreach 160mph. Their coefficients of drag with a rider are actually much worse than most cars, BUT, their frontal area is perhaps 1/2 that of a car.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,901
    "Seriously? Making a vehcile more boxy, doesn;t enhance the aerodynamics. Reducing hte frontal area and smoothing surfaces so there are fewer sharp angles that create turbulence does. "

    Actually, there are means by which once can have a "boxy" rear, and yet the aerodynamics do not suffer, but it doesn't look right for style. I forget the name of the concept, but basically it involves making the air flow such that it generates a sort of roiling motion behind the rear window, and air flows over it.

    It can be interesting; for example a pickup truck is more efficient with the rear gate UP than with it down...
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    concerning aerodynamics, which mentions that the 09 gets 1 mpg better than the 08, due to a reshaping of the front.

    page 20 near bottom
  • concerning aerodynamics, which mentions that the 09 gets 1 mpg better than the 08, due to a reshaping of the front.

    I suspect that's more marketing hype. It gains 1mpg in city and highway. City mileage as it's tested would not be largely affected by such a small aerdynamic change. If the increase was only on highway mileage, I'd believe it, but since it's both, I suspect the changes to the compression, cams and fuel injectors made the greatest impact. It's apparanetly slightly more efficient at part throttle from the changes, even though peak torque output has not increased.

    I think the modified front end may have helped, but was a smaller factor.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,901
    "I suspect that's more marketing hype. It gains 1mpg in city and highway. City mileage as it's tested would not be largely affected by such a small aerdynamic change. If the increase was only on highway mileage, I'd believe it, but since it's both, I suspect the changes to the compression, cams and fuel injectors made the greatest impact. It's apparanetly slightly more efficient at part throttle from the changes, even though peak torque output has not increased. "

    The city MPG is because of the new 2.5L engine, they were able to use it more efficiently than the old 2.3L, so yes, they did adjust a lot of the internal timings & etc.

    The highway mileage, believe it or not, is helped by increasing the width of a very small chin spoiler. In my 2008 it stops short of the edges of the front bumper. In the 2009-2010, it extends further by about 3 inches on each side. Apparently this managed to cut the aerodynamic drag caused by the front tires...
  • I thought you were talking about the 2010 CR-V in terms of it's mileage going up 1mpg.

    Although, don't be fooled on the 2010 CR-V. IT makes 180HP now, but in real world driving, there won't be a noticeable increase because most all the gains were above 5000 RPM. Most of it likely above 6000.

    On the Escape. Yes, the 2.5L is a big improvement. The 2.3L was getting dated and underperformed in the standard configuration (not the DI or turbo version) and a weak spot for both Ford and Mazda.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    i think the biggest difference is the transmission.
    the '09 3.0 is about 20% more powerful, yet delivers better mileage.
    it doesn't use direct injection, either.
    the 6 speed shifts much better than the previous 4 speed.
  • An increase in power in a engine is a tricky thing ot evealuate and not a good measure of the engines overall performance. Smoetimes more power is gained by using more fuel, other times it's gained by better overall combustion efficiency, such an increase in the compression ratio.

    The transmission was clearly the biggest improvment, but the increase in engine performance may have allowed hte enigne to use a lower gear, where it previously would have unlocked the torque converter or downshifted.

    I still think overall the EPA ratings are somewhat suspect. A better measure would be to publush fuel consumption numbers for the vehcile when traveling at a steady speed, and when accerating from a stop to 60mph at a given rate, and holding a given speed up an incline. It would be much more objective than the simulated test cycle the EPA uses now.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    i don't care about objective. the real world difference is approaching 20%. pretty good with that.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    edited May 2010
    This vehicle belongs to my wife. After about a month of test driving and research she chose the Ford Escape. She chose the 2.5 XLT 4WD automatic in steel blue with the 204A package.

    When she test drove the CRV vs the Escape, she preferred the styling of the Escape. She also commented on the driving/seating position. Along with commenting on the overall driving feel of the Escape. Just my .02$ worth here.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 44,174
    edited November 2011
    "The 2013 Ford Escape saw a bigger surge of consumer interest than did the 2012 Honda CR-V after the competing crossovers made their debut at the Los Angeles Auto Show last week, according to Edmunds.com. According to Edmunds.com site traffic data, the Ford Escape enjoyed a 95 percent lift in average consideration in the days following its unveiling last Wednesday. The CR-V, meanwhile, saw a jump of 25 percent over the same period.

    “This is just one of many battles to come in the next 12 to14 months within the crossover SUV segment,” said Jessica Caldwell, senior analyst at Edmunds.com. “The Escape and CR-V will fight to outdo each other, but they’ll also have a lot of other competitors in an increasingly strong segment that includes other popular choices like the Chevrolet Equinox, Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4.”

    Escape Passes CR-V In Consumer Interest (AutoObserver)

    Moderator - Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 44,174
    This discussion pretty much died off after being very active for a number of years. The CR-V prices paid discussions are really busy here, the Escape ones not so much.

    Not sure why that is - the sales race is neck and neck with Honda taking the honors for 2014 by ~25,000 units.

    Any recent buyers cross-shop these two SUVs?

    Top 10 Best-Selling Vehicles for 2014

    Moderator - Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    Personally, I feel like the CR-V and Escape are not cross shopped very much, anymore.
    A CR-V would be considered against a RAV-4.
    An Escape has too much styling and tech for most CR-V drivers. They are just more conservative.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 44,174
    lol, thanks, that ought to stir up the pot a bit. :D

    Moderator - Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    Should I mention power? Oops, just did. :)
  • As close minded as it might be, consumers are faced with the decision of "should I buy a Ford or a Honda"? We know which one sounds better based off of reliability....
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    The sales numbers of both are close enough that 'reliability' doesn't seem to be a differentiator.
  • henrynhenryn Houston, TXPosts: 422
    I can't fit in an Escape. Not at all, period.

    I do fit, and quite comfortably, in a CR-V.

    Case closed.
    2013 Ford F150 XLT Supercrew, 2005 Tahoe
  • berriberri Posts: 4,573
    Why is Ford still making cramped cars when Americans are getting taller? I've found on rentals that the Explorer is also short on driver legroom compared to most of the comparable competition.

    As for sales, Escapes are in rental fleets, CRV's not. I've seen some pretty nice sales incentives on new Escapes lately as well.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    edited January 23
    Escape does have a good number of fleet sales, doesn't detract from it being a good choice.
    I just bought a CPO 2013 SEL as my new winter vehicle. Nice mid level, 2.0, 5 level heated seats, 18 inch rims, touch screen.
    It drives great although it sat on the dealer's lot since September. I expect it to get even better with regular driving.
    Although I'm a touch over 6 ft, I had to raise the driver's seat up a bit to get comfortable.
  • ClintClint Posts: 6
    I have owned both. Including a 2013 Escape. After one year, I got rid of it. Typical Ford, so many issues. Thankfully they were covered by the warranty. I thought it wise to get rid of it before the warranty period ended. My past experiences with Ford vehicles was difficult. After one year, I had concerns the 2013 Escape would be as bad as my prior Ford vehicles. Replaced it with a 2014 CRV, much better in all areas.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 10,266
    My wife has a 2013 Escape with the 2.0 approaching 35k. It has had some recalls, but nothing was actually wrong. One of the kids is driving a 2004 with 130k that was handed down a couple of times. It's going to need it's most expensive repair, replacement of a lower suspension arm, about $400.
Sign In or Register to comment.
CR-V vs Escape - Page 278 - Car Forums at Edmunds.com