Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

1386387389391392417

Comments

  • 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
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,015
    Don't forget the transbrake :shades: .
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    "Of course all of these little SUV's are made for girls..."

    :mad:

    ; - )
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,456
    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.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    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: 3,209
    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: 2,803
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.