Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

19798100102103278

Comments

  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    a car frame??? Oh-come on!@! Let me guess, Honda will get raving reviews, tons of fluff and applause for a "revolutionary" truck.. When anyone knows people here in the U.S. trucks are used to tow, haul, pull and 4x4!! Hard to do all this with a car frame.... No V8?? The Dakota has a V8, and so will the new Chev Colorado.. Honda is already behind.. Torque and HP/Torque curve.. something Honda does not understand...

    Lets get back to CRV vs Escape now.....

    This room has died.. Lets get it going again...
    The Escape plain out powers the CRV, handles better, better SUV all around per Motor Trend!! Escape also is better looking.. I have yet to read a reviewer say anything about the CRV's great looks... LOL@@!
  • rleirlei Posts: 26
    Scape, you may not be able to tow a 6000 lb boat around by this new truck (assuming built on frame with relatively lower torque than v8s), but I would guess it will serve well for grand ma coming back from Home Depot with her garden needs, or business needing a truck but really only need to load it lightly. My grand ma doesn't need a v8, nor does a smart business man when he doesn't need the capacity. But a truck is useful to them.

    When Honda Civic / Toyota Corolla were first introduced in 70', most people were skeptical about these small, plain, cheap looking cars. Now they have to fend really hard to people understanding this philosophy.

    I would invest my money in companies exploring this idea/market (it is very successful in a lot countries, actually, before coming to North American, I had never seen a v8 truck, not because poeple don't need to haul stuffs outside of North American) , but not in companies that build $50K truck just to make a statement.
  • Another win for the CRV! Since it is sooooo underpowered and ugly and all I guess all those people must be loseres!

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030113-1.htm
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    rlei,
    You're right, it may not be a bad idea. Time will tell. I for one don't agree though. Toyota has been trying the truck thing for some time now with little to moderate success, and their trucks are closer to "real" trucks.

    A pickup truck based on a car? Let's get back to reality now. It, like the Element, will not sell very well because they only cater to a very small portion of the population. They should just vary the CR-V and Pilot a little more instead. For example, they could modify the Pilot to be like the upcoming GMC Envoy XL which is an SUV with the capability of carrying larger loads due to a convertible rear end. It's almost the best of both worlds.

    Remember, Honda rushed another truck to market to "catch up". It was called the Passport.

    I know, that's a different story.
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    Honda is a smart company. If they build a truck based on a car frame they will surely reinforce the frame where it will be necessarry to meet a basic truck standard.

    My guess is it will compete between the Ford Ranger and the Ford 150. That is a decent niche to be in.

    Have you heard of the new Nissan Titan Truck coming out soon! The standard v8 is more powerful then the Toyota, Ford, Checy and Dodge. It can tow 9,400 pounds!!!
  • icvciicvci Posts: 1,031
    The Escape plain out powers the CRV, handles better, better SUV all around per Motor Trend!! Escape also is better looking.. I have yet to read a reviewer say anything about the CRV's great looks... LOL@@!

    Go to jdpower.com. Click automobile. Enter the 2002 Escape, then enter the 2002 CR-V. The CR-V beats your Escape in every category they polled. Including styling. Sorry, you lose. Again.

    Then go to the left hand side of the homepage. Click on the news and awards section, then scroll down to segment. Click the on compact sport utility and weep. The categories aren't exactly clear but, you'll find the CR-V wins AGAIN.

    And I'm sorry but that Motor Trend article wasn't a resounding win for the Escape. R/T testers seemed to say the Escape was their choice, because they had to pick one. And calling the Escapes exterior stying "vanilla" isn't a compliment.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Does anyone else see the irony in laughing at the idea of a car-based truck when you own a car-based SUV?
  • Car based...truck based...house based...so what? I much prefer the more accurate terms of unibody vs body on frame, Since my first two cars, not trucks, but four door sedans, were body on frame.

    For a daily driver, I prefer the structural rigidity of a unibody vehicle over a BOF. Fewer squeaks and rattles.

    I have more of an issue with a FWD pickup than one based on a unibody chassie.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    I missed where it is stated that this "truck" would be FWD. That would be a very bad thing. I hope they plan on offering a real 4X4 system too. Does Honda even make one?

    "Does anyone else see the irony in laughing at the idea of a car-based truck when you own a car-based SUV?"

    Good point! But the Escape, CR-V, and all other SUV's are basically glorified station wagons. This "truck" from Honda would be a glorified El Camino. We all know how that one turned out for GM. :)
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    It'll most likely be FWD - the only offerings from Honda that are RWD are the S2000 and NSX.

    I think the people who buy it don't want a RWD truck because they won't really need a truck, they just want to be seen in one and be able to utilize the cargo bed of a truck. I doubt they'll tow anything. Very similar to the cross-over SUV frenzy.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    But if you put something heavy in the bed of a FWD "truck", the front end will lose some weight over the wheels thus decreasing traction. This could be a problem on dirt, gravel, or any other loose terrain.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I Know I own a car based mini-SUV..
    Fact is in a car based truck you cannot tow, haul, pull or offroad like you can with a truck frame..
  • odie6lodie6l Hershey, PaPosts: 1,078
    isn't GM getting honda engine's to use in their vehicles and Honda is getting some of GM's drivetrains for use in some of their upcomming vehicles.

    But who knows?

    Odie
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    When referring to towing...

    I have never understood those people who think that having a front wheel drive truck is wrong. WHY?

    This is why I don't agree with that assessment, or shall we say "common misconception".

    Ok, the tongue weight of the trailer should be 10% of the total weight. This means, if you are towing, lets say....4,500 pounds, the amount of weight on the tongue should be around 450 pounds. 450 pounds is MINUSCULE compared to the weight of the engine in the front of todays vehicles!!!
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    baggs - I don't think the target audience will carry concrete blocks around town. This "truck" will be for the city dwellers who buy plants and decorations from Loewe's. He will occasionally need to transport a couch from Ikea.

    I see plenty of RWD pickup trucks that do those things more than they do the heavy duty stuff. That task is relegated to the full-sizers, which this Honda will not be.
  • Scape.........you finally said something we can all agree to! #3050. However, you do always stress that your Escape is so much superior in this area when in reality, if you put 3500 lbs. on that hitch you would be in for a big surprise in everything but straight line driving.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    "I don't think the target audience will carry concrete blocks around town."

    That's a good thing too because they won't be able to.

    I can't believe Honda, since all of you think they're so smart, would go through all the trouble of re-tooling a plant to build a vehicle that won't sell very well at all. There just isn't a market for it when people can buy a real truck for the same amount of money and know that it's skills are there if you ever need them. Even if you won't. Today's pickup trucks are very car-like already anyway. This new Honda "truck" is not really going to set the world afire with great handling and/or performance.

    I wonder how much they plan on charging for this thing. The Pilot bases at what, around $27,000? A Ranger bases at about $12,000 and a Dakota at around $20,000. The two SUV's that have spawned from them base competitively with the Pilot though.

    By the way, where did this news come from? I have not read about it anywhere else.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    OK, I think I found it:

    http://auto123.sympatico.ca/autonews/index.spy?cmd=view&artid=6833&pg=2

    Honda might want to take a long hard look at the sales performance of the Subaru Baja before they get in too deep. It sounds like their "truck" will compete more directly with it than with the real pickups. I can see more of a use for something like that (four seats with a fold down gate to extend the bed; e.g. Baja, Avalanche) than an actual pickup truck based on a car. Those Baja/Avalanche type things are pretty cool if you ask me.

    All we need is for some company to make one that's a little easier on the eyes. :)
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    "I can't believe Honda, since all of you think they're so smart, would go through all the trouble of re-tooling a plant to build a vehicle that won't sell very well at all."

    Honda's plants are set up in a manner in which re-tooling would take only a few months, the fastest in the industry. Basically they can stop, re-tool, build vehicle A, then stop, re-tool, build vehicle B, at a much faster rate than the industry.

    "Honda's initial plans to build a mere 75,000 Pilots hardly sounds threatening. But that's where Honda's wizardry with flexible manufacturing comes in. Together, the company's two plants in Alliston, Ont., and Lincoln, Ala., can churn out any combination of 300,000 Pilot and MDX SUVs and Odyssey minivans. That allows Honda to concentrate on whichever model happens to be in greatest demand.

    Such flexibility eludes old-style mass manufacturers like Ford. The No. 2 auto maker is geared to cranking out hundreds of thousands of Tauruses, Explorers, and F-150 pickups, with as many as three factories dedicated to each vehicle. But in a fragmented market, "it's hard for any manufacturer to sell two plants-full of one product--or even to sell out one plant," says James J. Padilla, head of Ford North America. When demand for any vehicle drops, Ford is stuck with extra capacity that its union contract won't let it shed."

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_04/b3767077.htm

    See...they are smart.
  • icvciicvci Posts: 1,031
    just got done reading a review of the 2001 CR-V from cartalk.com (great site)

    One of their paragraphs sums up the CR-V better than any I've ever read.

    "It's still the "minivan of SUVs." It's practical above all. It's the descendant of the old four-wheel-drive Civic wagon. It's a good SUV for someone who really, in his heart, doesn't want an SUV. It's an SUV for someone who can't commit to a full-size, emission-spewing behemoth but still wants a vehicle to go cross-country skiing in."
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    This is what I was looking for:

    "In theory, each of Honda's four major North American assembly plants can produce almost any model sold in this market."

    http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=3622
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    "See...they are smart."

    No. Their plants are newer. Some of the big three's plants have been around for over fifty years. Their newer plants in other countries, which we don't know much about unfortunately, are probably more flexible like Honda's U.S. plants.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    baggs - Did you read the second link I posted? Honda faced the same problem that Ford faces today - their plants are "newer" because they took the time and effort to implement that scheme. Before that, if you read the link, the Honda's plants were just as cumbersome as the rest of the industry.

    "Their newer plants in other countries, which we don't know much about unfortunately, are probably more flexible like Honda's U.S. plants."

    That holds very little water. And the fact that Ford isn't bragging about it tells me that it's probably non-existent.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    "That holds very little water. And the fact that Ford isn't bragging about it tells me that it's probably non-existent."

    Same goes for the fact that Honda doesn't brag about how great people think their vehicles are in other parts of the world.

    "their plants are "newer" because they took the time and effort to implement that scheme."

    Their plants are also newer in that they were built within the past 10 - 15 years. I would think that it would be harder to modify an older building.

    Ford has had modular plants for a little while now. The Ranger and Explorer were coming off the same line (don't know if they still are) since the Explorer started production. That's about 13 years now I believe.

    You have to remember too that Honda only has a handful of plants in the U.S. whereas the big three each have many each. Which, again, are old. Television wasn't even invented when some of these plants were built and you think that adding robots would be a quick and simple process there?

    My real point is, the big three have flexible plants. They just aren't updating all of them as fast as the Japanese are. That doesn't mean they are "smarter". Just faster in this case.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    "I can't believe Honda, since all of you think they're so smart, would go through all the trouble of re-tooling a plant to build a vehicle that won't sell very well at all." -baggs

    My money's on Honda.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    You're joking right?

    Do my wife and I own the only Honda that doesn't blow brain washing gas out of the HVAC vents?
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    "Same goes for the fact that Honda doesn't brag about how great people think their vehicles are in other parts of the world."

    Huh? Does Honda brag about how great people think their vehicles are over here as well? You're confusing the issues. I guarantee that if Ford had such an assembly line, the world would know about it it, even if it was in some remote island in the Pacific. But they don't.

    "By mid-decade, half of Ford's North American body shops will be flexible. That puts them years behind the Japanese. Grade: B-"

    That's the grade they received. You say that Honda is faster - to me, that means they're doing something right, which means they're smarter than Ford, considering what a big financial clout Ford is compared to Honda.

    "The flexible conveyors were a costly investment. At its plant in Marysville, Ohio, Honda ripped out a conveyer system last year that had been installed just a few years earlier. The original conveyor handled several different models, but the automaker wanted even more flexibility.

    So Honda spent $300 million overhauling the production lines at Marysville and East Liberty, Ohio. By year end, those two plants will be producing six models."

    $300 million - Ford has that money. They just don't want to spend the money.

    "My real point is, the big three have flexible plants. They just aren't updating all of them as fast as the Japanese are. That doesn't mean they are 'smarter'. Just faster in this case."

    Read the link I posted - it is clearly written that the Big3 have flexible plants (they were even "graded"). If you would just read the links (instead of sitting there making excuses for Ford) you would've read that - I don't see why you're trying to make it a "point." That was never the issue - you initially implied that Honda would regret making a FWD pickup as its assembly plants would suffer when no one buys them, purposely neglecting that it has the fastest and most flexible assembly plants in the industry. And I never said Honda was smart - it was more of a rebuttal against your sarcasm.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    "Read the link I posted - it is clearly written that the Big3 have flexible plants (they were even "graded")."

    I did. It's obvious now that we both have a different opinion about what it has to say.

    "If you would just read the links (instead of sitting there making excuses for Ford) you would've read that - I don't see why you're trying to make it a "point"

    If you would open up your mind a little maybe Honda wouldn't seem so great any more. It's time to stop believing everything you read. ;)

    Also, I'm not making excuses for Ford, they do a pretty good job of that on their own. The only similarities between Ford and Honda are that they both produce automobiles. They are two different completely different animals after that.

    "I guarantee that if Ford had such an assembly line, the world would know about it it, even if it was in some remote island in the Pacific. But they don't."

    and...

    "Read the link I posted - it is clearly written that the Big3 have flexible plants (they were even "graded")."

    So they don't have flexible plants, but they do (and they were even "graded")?

    "$300 million - Ford has that money. They just don't want to spend the money."

    So just because the article says it cost Honda that much it automatically means that it will cost Ford or any of the others the same? Older plants cost more to convert. Read the article below. Note that the F-15's NEW Rouge plant is flexible. It also makes mention of Ford's upcoming flexible engine assembly lines.

    http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/010301.html

    Here's another:

    http://www.fordtruckworld.com/news/assemblysystem.asp

    Another:

    http://www.assemblymag.com/execute-vSection-Articles-vSub-Detail-- vSideBar-Active-vrID-C79D3859AD324A49A7683F5F1FF95CDD-vDate-Novem- ber+2002.htm

    Note how that new Rouge plant is actually the old one (85 years old) remodeled and converted to accommodate flexible assembly. How much did it cost? $2 billion.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    "So they don't have flexible plants, but they do (and they were even 'graded')?"

    I said "I guarantee that if Ford had such an assembly line..." i.e., the most flexible assembly plant in the industry, not just any flexible plant.

    From your article:
    "By the end of the decade, the company expects 75% of its vehicle assembly operations to be changed over to the flexible process."

    By the end of the decade...it's 2003...you're going to have to wait 7 more years for Ford to catch up.

     My point is that Honda has the fastest one in the industry because they took the initiative and money to take on this massive overhaul in their plants, which contrary to your opinion, aren't just faster because they're newer. Honda spent $300 million to overhaul their plants - that's a chunk of money for a company the size of Honda.

    $2 billion for Ford to remodel the plant? They can easily recoup the cost of that when they're selling cars that people want and not laying off workers or idling plants by using the antiquated assembly lines.

    "If you would open up your mind a little maybe Honda wouldn't seem so great any more. It's time to stop believing everything you read. ;)"

    But they are. Look:
    "Small by automaker standards, Honda has annual sales of $58 billion, one-third that of industry leader General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and half that of archrival Toyota Motor (nyse: TM - news - people ). For Honda, keeping profitability consistently high, and bending over backward to do so, is a matter of survival.

    In the auto world, there is only one way to make a lot of money: Keep your factories humming and sell everything you make, something at which Honda excels. According to the most recent Harbour Report on automotive manufacturing, Honda's North American plants ran at 100% of capacity last year, the highest in the industry. Toyota was second, at 96%, and Nissan was third, at 89%. Not surprisingly, Honda made more money per car than any other automaker, $1,661. That's nearly $400 more per car than Nissan Motor (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) and $500 more than Toyota. GM was the only domestic producer to make money: just $337 per car. Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people )? It lost $1,913."

    http://www.forbes.com/2002/11/14/cz_jf_1114honda_print.html
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    No, I'm not joking.

    Honda has not gotten to be such a successful car company by doing dumb things. Especially considering they are not really a big company, compared to other manufacturers that have models at or near the top in sales in their category.

    Their track record is very good (and more verifiable than yours). Hence, my money's on them.

    p.s. I don't own a Honda, so I'm not subject to their "brain-washing gas" via HVAC. Maybe you've inhaled too many Ford fumes.
Sign In or Register to comment.