Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

1257258260262263278

Comments

  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,797
    As I said before, you cannot compare a stick to an automatic.

    So it is OK to comapre V6 to a "puny" I4?

    The best part is, the I4 wins, stick or auto.

    When we compare I4 Escape Manual to I4 CR-V manual, CR-V wins.

    When we compare I4 Escape auto to I4 CR-V auto, CR-V wins.

    When we compare V6 Escape Auto to I4 CR-V auto, it's a tie.

    When we compare V6 Escape Auto to I4 CR-V Manual, CR-V wins.

    3 out of 4 CR-V wins, and one is a tie. Look like pretty darn good odds for me.

    Your theory is OK, except you are foggeting the word "slushbox" is because the root of the problem with autos is the "slushbox" aka torque converter.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    First of all, the V6 Escape Auto in stock from will beat the 4 banger auto CR-V in stock from. I do not know who tested them, but the obviously did not know what they were doing or as I suspect, the numbers are editing errors. Also, if you claim two srouces of Car And Drive and motor Trend, they are escentially the same mag and do tend to repeat their own errors. I know that they are wrong as mine has been run at the track and I saw the results first hand. I guess it is pointless to argue this further, but it is the truth... ( In either case, both are quite slow anyway... ) Also, if you let a tuner simply up the shifting points and pressure a little, the V6 Escape/Mariner can ealsy out preform the CR-V any way you want to measure it. For some reason, FORD was ultra conservative with the Escapes/Mariner auto tuning parameters...

    You must not do much drag racing if you think an auto cannot be made to beat a stick.

    I should note that I like the little CR-V ( it was on the companies apporved list too). I simply found it too small for me ( 6'-4") The Mariner is not much better, but it does have a little more head and shoulder room. I also liked that tarted up interior of the Mariner better that that in the CR-V, especially the heated seats...

    However, I chose the Mariner mainly because of its much higher towing capacity. It pulls my fishing boat ( about 2500lb ) far better that the little CR-V would have been able to... With towing, it is all about torque and of course a good trans cooler.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I also liked that tarted up interior of the Mariner better that that in the CR-V, especially the heated seats...

    Um, the CR-V has had heated seats for awhile now.

    I won't argue the acceleration numbers, although I have posted them before you more clearly than you have for us (using the same sources), and you seem to think that test numbers are WRONG if they don't reflect what you expected to see.

    Also, if you let a tuner simply up the shifting points and pressure a little, the V6 Escape/Mariner can ealsy out preform the CR-V any way you want to measure it.

    If we are talking tuning, then I don't think we can have a coherent discussion. Cars aren't sold "tuned" and "tuned" cars can't be tested objectively, so I discount completely the fact that the Ford/Mercury are faster "if transmissions were tuned more aggressively." It's not my fault that Ford tuned their cars conservatively and got pretty equal acceleration times and much less fuel economy. Is it Honda's fault that their transmission is tuned better for economy AND acceleration? We could push the envelope in BOTH vehicles by tweaking things here and there, but those points have little credence in a room like this. Fact is, numerous magazine have tested the CR-V under 10 seconds (albeit slightly) and the Escape over 10 seconds to 60 (also, slightly). The fact that the Escape is tenths slower (or basically, as fast) as the CR-V doesn't make it a bad choice as a vehicle. It is a great vehicle for needs like yours, when you need to tow a light boat.

    Nobody's going to argue that if you need to tow, you need a V6.
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    I won't argue the acceleration numbers, although I have posted them before you more clearly than you have for us (using the same sources), and you seem to think that test numbers are WRONG if they don't reflect what you expected to see.

    It is not that I think they are wrong, it is a simple matter of fact that I KNOW that they are wrong.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Whatever you say, buddy. As for me, I'm gonna go with numbers that are published in numerous places. You go with whatever makes you happy.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    You go with whatever makes you happy.

    I take it you're going with what makes you happy as well! :)

    I think the discussion will be much more enjoyable if we all do a little less posturing.

    Carry on!

    tidester, host
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    Ok, Sense you prefer to review published tests, here you go...

    http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/37768/Act/Roadt- est/

    "Mercury says Luxury and Premier models are bulk of Mariner sales. Their V6 has ample power for passing and merging, even with AWD, which adds only 150-160 lb. Test AWD V6 Ford Escape did 8.9 sec 0-60 mph. No opportunity yet to time Mariner, but similar weight implies similar performance. Experience with test Escapes shows 4-cyl performance only adequate at best. Automatic transmission generally smooth, but sometimes hesitates to downshift for passing."

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

    P.S. This is MotorTrend's own truck mag offshoot. They list the 0-60 tie at 8.6sec...

    Both of these sources put the 0-60 tme in the mid to high 8 sec range. That is what I have also seen first hand.. I do not know what else to say...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    All I did was use the same source for both vehicles, the best way to get objective test numbers. Doing that was not flattering for either vehicle (both were around ten seconds) but I figured it would be the best way to get the most accurate numbers.

    I am much more apt to believe the Truck Trend tests. I wonder if they have a CR-V test?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    All I did was use the same source for both vehicles, the best way to get objective test numbers.

    As I said before, that's only part of the equation. Unless you're getting the numbers from the same source in a comparison there is much room for error.

    Different drivers, climate, altitude, etc. The driver is probably the biggest factor IMO.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,797
    First of all, the V6 Escape Auto in stock from will beat the 4 banger auto CR-V in stock from.

    Do you own both of them? Did you test both of them? Are Scape2 in disguise?

    I am talking from my own experience, we have a 2005 CR-V EX 5 spd, and 2005 Escape V6 XLT auto. I can jump from one to another.

    Escape "SEEMS" quicker or more powerful only because of the oval shaped throttle actuator (the name of the round thing that the throttle cable wraps around and connects the throttle plate has escaped me at this moment) Very little pedal travel opens throttle almost half open. It is very difficult to give it just a little throttle. To an inexperienced driver that may seem like "gobs of power" But if you continue pushing it, the engine runs out of air pretty fast at around 4000 RPM.

    CR-V, on the other had, has very linear pedal to throttle response from its drive by wire system. The engine does not run out of breath even at the red line (6800 RPM).

    If you look at the power band curves, both engines produce about 150 ft. lbs of torque at 2500 RPM. So, the 2 cylinder advantage and 600 cc's of displacement do not place Escape on top.

    Since Escape can't get past 4000 RPM, all that CLAIMED 200 hp is never reached. Ford claims 200 hp at around 6000 RPM, if I remember correctly. But, I have not been able to get the engine to get to 6000 RPM in the Escape. At most, Escape owners get 160 hp out of the 3.0 liter V6.

    Honda on the other hand, claims a modest 160 hp at 6800 RPM, which I can reach all day long. I get what I paid for with the Honda. While with Ford, you only get theoretical 200 hp, that you paid for, but in reality only get 160 hp.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Yes, but in these cases, it was the best possible option; it at least eliminated one variable. I agree, the driver is a big factor.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    6,800 RPM redline/horsepower peak? Huh?

    Max power comes 1,000RPM under that, and redline is 6,500.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,722
    some have posted enough times that you know you need to take into account the fudge factor. :)
  • Test drove the Escape two weeks ago. What a fun little vehicle! Went to the Honda dealer this week to test drive the CR-V. Walked up to it and did not like the looks of it at all. I don't want that thing in my driveway. Forget the test drive. Got back into my car and drove off.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The looks of the CR-V are pretty polarizing, I'll give ya that. It's not something that would keep me from getting it; right now, that would be the two-month wait!

    Personally, I'm not sure I'd drive either. Escapes are incredibly common, and look practically no different than they did when they debuted 6 years ago. It's a bore, and dated inside. The 2008 update should help though.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,722
    escapes still look good, not dated, and they got the basic design right. it is still a very practical vehicle (the 'U' part). look at all the new small suv's. they look a whole lot like an escape. i don't see even one that looks like any cr-v. there are plenty of things about the escape that could be improved, though.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    It's not something that would keep me from getting it; right now, that would be the two-month wait!

    Not here, my dealer had at least four on the lot yesterday (it was my first in person look...I'm sort of ambivalent about it) and more on their allocation sheet. It's the Fit that is the hard to get Honda model in this market. Although my dealer did have four coming in that weren't spoken for, but they want MSRP and that ain't gonna happen.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I don't think the CR-V is bad looking, just a little boring/dated looking because of the fact that it hasn't changed in 6 years (like the Taurus). I didn't think the Taurus was ugly at all, just got more boring with time (like looking at a 2000 CR-V - it isn't ugly, just boring). It needs more than refreshed taillamp and headlamp lenses to keep it looking up-to-date.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Here in B'ham, the only CR-V on the lot two weeks ago was in the showroom, and was a demo (it had every accessory tacked on to it).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,722
    come on up to connecticut, where we actually have winter (not this year so far). you can find plenty of them.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    come on up to connecticut, where we actually have winter

    I imagine so. 2WD CR-Vs can be pretty common here too, though. My father even had one for awhile, between Accords.

    Not to rub it in, but here's a synopsis of the forecast in Birmingham, AL where I live for the next dew days, taken from our local ABC affiliate:

    A Warm Weekend
    Look for highs in the 70 to 73 degree range this weekend with a good supply of sunshine each day.


    Gotta love record warmth in Bama. I actually went Christmas shopping in my leather flip-flops today. Weird feeling.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    The CR-V was completely changed for the 2007 model year. Maybe you haven't seen it yet.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Oops; I typed CR-V, I meant Escape!
  • srangersranger Posts: 106
    Do you own both of them? Did you test both of them? Are Scape2 in disguise?

    No, a gal at work has the 2006 CR-V. We have run them for fun, the Mariner is faster ( of course both are slooow ) and I probably weigh about 120lb more than she does and I had about 100lb of demo equipment in the back. I added a 65lb class III trailer hitch. So the CR-V had a significant weight advantage. ( Of course I know you won't believe it as I have no proof.... )

    As for the rest of your post, all I can say is I have no idea what you are trying to prove or say?

    My Mariner will shift at 6K on every shift if you floor it.... So I have no idea what you are trying to say...
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,797
    I tested both CR-V and Escape with a borrowed G-tech in 2005. Now, that both are broken in, I am going to test them again. I just ordered my own G-tech, along with ScangaugeII I already own, I will get pretty good information about both.

    So far, I have been calculating MPG's based or diatnce bertween refueling. Now, I get instantenous and average MPG read outs from both. Once I get enough statistical data, I will post it.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,722
    driver skill is stil a factor.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I visit this room and smile. Still the same old story of CRV being more "reliable". yet when you look at the MSN reliability data, AND the TCO data right here at Edmunds.. the Escape is within a few hundred bucks!@. When I purchased my Escape in 01 I never heard the end of it from the Honda crowd. "Your Escape is going to fall apart", "Its going to be unreliable" Fords are blah, blah, blah.. My Escape was used to tow, visit skii areas, fishing spots in the Cascade range. It was used as an SUV and rode harder than I'm sure many of the CRV's get. After 75,000 trouble free miles, I turned it in for a Fusion. My wife owns an 04 Mazda Tribute ES V6 with about 30,000 trouble free miles.. See a pattern here? ;) Have a good Xmas..
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "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 )

    Spanger, I am a thorne in the CRV's crowd side. I used to argue these point over and over again. Kind of funny how they can take the worst 0-60 times for Escape and the best times for the CRV and call it written in stone.. Along with they take the 5spd manual numbers.. along with they fail to mention in order to achieve these numbers they have to redline the CRV through every gear!! tell me who drives their vehicle like that??
  • Currently we own a Honda Odysey and a Ford Focus. We have not spent a cent other than scheduled maintenance for the Honda, and the odometer reads 112k. Ford Focus has been another story all together. We had non-stop problems. The odometer reads around 68k but wea have already spend a few thousand dollars on breakdowns. Initially I thought I would buy another Ford only if I got real good discount. Right now, I would not "buy" another Ford vehicle in my life time even if some one gave it free. Before this, I have owned an Accord and a Camry and both cars were over 200k before I sold it.
    I will only buy a 'Japanese' brand until Ford and GM realize that people would rather pay full sticker price and get quality products. I am thus willing to wait in the queue until March to get a CR-V rather than buy a 'cheaper' Ford Escape. Once bitten twice shy.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    referring to getting the best 0-60 times...along with they fail to mention in order to achieve these numbers they have to redline the CRV through every gear

    Oh, because to go as fast as you can in an Escape, you what, shift at 3,000 RPM? Heck no. You have to wind out an Escape just like you have to wind out a CR-V if you want the best 0-60 numbers. I don't honestly think that you can believe that if you have ANY common sense.

    Wow scape, you're really stretching it here bucko - save yourself a little credibility and read what you wrote before you click "Post My Message" because you are making less and less sense here lately.
Sign In or Register to comment.