Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

1256257259261262278

Comments

  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,793
    "'And for the record, how many manual CR-V are sold in the US????? "

    None at this time, they no longer offer the MT. They did not sell many.

    "And just what is the towing capacity of that super powerful 4 banger/manual you speak of???"

    1500 lbs, although the smaller European engine (2.0L) is rated for 3000 lbs if the tow has it's own brakes. So I suspect the US model could also match that. But the official value is 1500 lbs.

    Not sure what this matters; no one has claimed any towing advantage for the CR-V over the Escape.

    However, there is no question that Honda engine technology is superior. The bare fact that an 2.4L I4 without turbo or supercharging can come even close to a 3.0L V6 engine tells the entire story.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Haven't seen the acceleration times for the new CR-V, but in no way is the CR-V "put to shame" by the Escape.

    MT hit 60 in 9.9 seconds. They typically use an agressive method to obtain their times, one which a daily driver would never attempt, so it looks like the new gen is significantly slower than the last gen. More weight maybe?

    Edmunds did it in 9.8 seconds FWIW.

    None of this means much as neither of the above tested an Escape at the same time plus the '08 Escape will likely be slower due to some added weight and it has definitely not been tested yet.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Last I checked, the last V-6 Escape I saw tested had a 0-60 time of 10.6 seconds (a 2005 XLT Sport in Aug 2004's Motor Trend in the same magazine that listed the CR-V at 9.9 seconds (in the recent 2007 SUV of the Year report). Seems like neither is particularly fast, but both are equally adequate. I figure this gives the Escape the advantage of being a little lighter back in 2005 than it would be in 2007. The magazine test all vehicle in the same way, to get the most out of an acceleration run.

    Both cars were automatics (the Escape a 4A, the CR-V a 5A) with AWD.

    The Escape would definitely win towing wars.

    The CR-V 2WD gets 23/30MPG, the AWD 22/28MPG
    The Escape with AWD gets 18/23 MPG, 20/24 MPG with 2WD.

    So, similar (if you don't want to believe better) accleration with an extra 3-4 MPG in town, 5-6 MPG better on the highway.

    Unless towing, my opinion is that CR-V has a very competitive model when comparing acceleration and fuel consumption with Escape unless you need to tow 3k pounds, in which you need a V6.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    The BAD info that people try to post is amazing. Here is a review of the 2006 Mariner ( Tarted up Escape ).

    The 4 banger 0-60 is 9.8sec, the V6 is 8.6sec.

    http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0504_2005_mercury_mariner/

    I have personaly seen 0-60 in the 8.5sec range with my 2005 V6 Mariner. ( Wife ran it at the track one day when I was running my Mustang )
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    From that article:

    2005 Mercury Mariner V-6

    Price range $22,358-$27,200
    Layout Front engine, FWD/AWD, 4-door, 5-pass SUV
    Engine 2.3L/153-hp I-4 or 3.0L/200-hp V-6
    0-60 mph, sec 9.8/8.6 (I-4/V-6)
    On-sale date Currently


    Glad to see the little woman bested Motor Trend's test drivers! :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Alright, I'm just using one piece of info. One magazine, one type of testing procedure. Not bad info; if you want to accuse me of lying just do it already (you are implying it with saying I'm posting "bad information"), but you can check the issues of the magazines I've posted if you want - the info is there. 10.6 for V6 XLT Sport Escape, 9.9 for CR-V EX AWD. Using one type of test procedure (or one magazine's numbers) was the most unbiased way I knew how to post information. Different magazines will undoubtedly use different test methods, which is why I chose one, Motor Trend.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    You should always choose the same source but you also have to make sure they were tested on the same day by the same person. If they were from different articles one could have been tested in the heat of summer and the other in the cold of winter. Cold air makes you go a little faster. Also altitude, humididty, driver weight, etc. can come into play.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If you find me a recent comparison I'd be elated to see it. The last one I remember involved a 2002 CR-V manual transmission, which tested 0-60 in 8.3 sec (many years ago). I figured choosing the same magazine at least narrowed down SOME of the parameters.

    Again, we are talking tenths of a second, which is why I said they were basically equal, and both adequate. If both are under 12 seconds to 60MPH, you aren't going to die trying to merge. If you want a hot-rod cute-ute, get a Saturn Vue (with Honda's 3.5L 250 hp V6) or a RAV4 (with a 3.5L 268 hp V6). Both should get you to 60 MPH in 7 seconds.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    If you like, I can post several more recent examples that put the 2005 and later V6 Escape/Mariner in the 8.5-8.9 second range of 0-60. Also, since I have the advantage of owning one, I knew that the info you posted was not accurate for the current models. I was not trying to say you were lying, I just wanted to point out that the information was not accurate...

    I should also note that mine is a FWD not AWD and that will makes mine a little quicker as it is about 150lb lighter...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Just realize what you are saying and comparing; you are asking me to believe that a nationally circulated, VERY well-known and long-running magazine, has less accurate numbers with their more sophisticated and exact measuring tools than you, someone who I don't know if they are a 9 year old or a 99 year old on the other side of this forum. While I don't think you are a liar or 9 year old, I just tend to believe something that is well-known and published, vs someone driving their car against a stopwatch.

    FWD vs AWD will make a big difference; the CR-V numbers we have are from AWD models, so if we compare your car to an AWD CR-V, we aren't comparing apples-to-apples. It's like comparing apples-to-caramel apples. Just saying yours is FWD makes you much more credible in my eyes :).

    AWD adds weight AND friction.

    How about this - AWD Escapes/Mariners and CR-Vs are around 10 seconds, with the FWD models a little quicker. Neither will get you run over.

    Can we agree on that and move past the acceleration talk?
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    You are certianly welcome to believe anything that you like. However, I can say with complete confidence that the V6 Mariner is a sub 9 sec 0-60 in most conditions and would be delited to take bets to prove it... That about the best I can offer...

    It really does not matter, but I suspect that they incorrectly posted the 0-60 time for the 4 cylinder instead of the V6. It happens all of the time with these auto rags.

    I would bet that there was a correction posted in a later edition...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, I subscribe to both Car and Driver as well as Motor Trend; one had 0-60 at 10.6 seconds, and the other had 10.2 seconds. Both were AWD models, like the CR-V tested at 9.9 sec is. Your model is FWD, however; until a FWD CR-V is tested, it's hard to compare the CR-V to your Mariner.

    I can't find the article with the 10.2, but I distinctly remember they liked it because of its "friendly" handling; it was compared with the Vue and Santa Fe, and possibly one more. If someone can find the article I'd appreciate it.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,664
    the only posters on this thread are guys. the cr-v is now focused towards women customers.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,447
    I hate to break the news to all you guys... The CR-V has always been focused towards women...

    They just have better things to do than come here and talk about it.. ;)

    regards,
    kyfdx
    two-time CR-V owner... getting in touch with my feminine side

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    hate to break the news to all you guys... The CR-V has always been focused towards women...

    Yeah, this is news to anyone? Any of the crossovers are targeting the female, soccer-mom market. Otherwise, they wouldn't have sold them replacing the everyday minivan soccer-moms used to think were cool.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Any of the crossovers are targeting the female, soccer-mom market.

    You don't have to tell me that. My wife still longs to have our Escape back because it was "just the right size". I happen to love our '06 Explorer because to me it's an exceptional SUV. It's not great in any way, well maybe it's really quiet interior, but it it does everything very well. I'd take it over any of these cute utes any day of the year.

    As for the size of the Escape, it was not the right size for a 2-year old and a newborn which is why it's gone. When the boys are 5 and 3 (Explorer is leased) I wouldn't be surprised to be test driving a 2009 or 2010 Escape if it's still around.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    If you find me a recent comparison I'd be elated to see it.

    You probably won't have to wait long to see one as the '08 Escape has been introduced, a new Liberty is due, the new CR-V is out, and a new Vue is due. Probably some time next year.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,664
    go over to an escape central type site and read what owners are storing in their consoles. ;)
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    You seem quite upset by the fact that the 2G CR-V with a manual transmission equalled or even beat the 0-60 times of a V6 Escape. Sorry, but it's a fact.

    You opened up this discussion by making a blatantly false (or at the very least highly exaggerated) statement.

    However, in a AWD V6 edition, it puts the CR-V to shame in most preformance (sic) comparisons.

    0-60 time IS considered a "performance" category.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    If your car buying decisions are primarily based on resale value, then you're right to buy Honda over Ford.

    Better resale is just part of it.

    SUPERIOR engineering is #1 reason for me.

    Better build quality is #2 reason.

    Better handling and suspension Geometry is #3

    Better resale is just the icing on the cake at #4.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    You obviously did not drive a V6 Escape if you think that the CR-V has more power.

    The CR-V is a good little mini-van ( like the Escape ).

    However, in a AWD V6 edition, it puts the CR-V to shame in most preformance comparisons. The CR-V also has a rather pathetic towing capacity realitive to the 3500lb of the V6 Escape...

    There are good reasons to own both and blanket statments that one is better than the other are pointless...


    The Auto AWD CR-V (Gen 2: 2002-2006) has the same 0-60 numbers as the Escape V6 AWD.

    The manual version of CR-V gets to 60 2 seconds quicker than Escape V6. Manual version of Escape only comes with I4, and can barely break the 60 mph, CR-V is the true winner.

    And if you tow 3500 lbs all day long, neither vehicle is right.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Men typically don’t like the (fair or unfair) wimpy reputation of driving a minivan. In order to appeal to more than just females, the car companies cleverly disguised little minivans to look like the more rugged truck based SUVs. So, in my opinion (I said opinion) these crossovers and little "SUV's" are nothing more than AWD minivans that men will drive.

    Since Automatuics are for girls, then Escape V6 is for girls too, because it only comes with AUTO.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    I'll be happy to put my V6 Mariner up against your little 4 banger any day and any amount you care to wager my friend....

    Are you sure you want to do that? My puny 4 banger goes 0-60 in 8.2 seconds (G-tech) And yes, I drive stick.

    Approx 3 of CR-V's sold in the US were stick, the rest were sold to girls/women.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    Obviously a stick would out preform an automatic since you can hold the shift well beyond the red line ( up to the rev limiter ) and squeeze a little more performance out of the engine. ( It is a little rough on the engine and drive train )

    As I said before, you cannot compare a stick to an automatic.

    However, if I you allow me to use a programmer and up the shift points a couple of hundred rpm and increase the shift pressure to make it a fair contest you my friend are own....

    I feel compelled to note that a good tunner can drop 0.5-1 sec off the 0-60 time because you can raise the rev limit and shift points. You can also adjust the automatic shift pressure to cause it to shift much more quickly ( same as speed shifting a stick... ) It does make the shifts way too firm for normal driving however.

    I know for a fact that these Escape/Mariners respond very well to tuning. If you put a 91-93 octane ( more timming and disable the variable cam ) tune and up the shift points these cars can easly do 0-60 in the 7.5 sec range with no mechanical mods. Of course you have to run premium fuel...

    P.S. Before anyone asks, the variable cam design that Ford uses is for fuel milage, not performance. By locking at the the max advance, you will generate a lot more torque down low and significantly improve the 0-60.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    Of course all of these little SUV's are made for girls...

    The ONLY reason I have one is so that I can get $400.00/month + free Insurance and milage on my companies auto re-embursment plan... It is was the only one on the approved list that I could stand to drive.... ( Think Grand am, sebring, one sutters to think about it... )

    I have a 2005 500+hp Mustang GT with a Saleen Supercharger for my fun car.... Of course it is an automatic, so I guess it is a chick car too....hehehe
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,424
    Don't forget the transbrake :shades: .

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    "Of course all of these little SUV's are made for girls..."

    :mad:

    ; - )
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,664
    the latest cr-v gives up practicality for style more than the previous version. the rear liftgate was fixed, but it gives up the separate opening rear window.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    That's a trade I would gladly make, just to get rid of that stupid side-swing door that always was banging into the car behind, and if someone was parked behind, it blocked your way to the sidewalk! :mad:
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    That's a trade I would gladly make, just to get rid of that stupid side-swing door that always was banging into the car behind, and if someone was parked behind, it blocked your way to the sidewalk!

    It depends which side of the (one way) street you park on.
Sign In or Register to comment.