Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

1399400402404405417

Comments

  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,732
    "#8219 of 8220 Re: VSC [kyfdx] by baggs32 Mar 29, 2007 (5:58 pm)
    Replying to: kyfdx (Mar 29, 2007 2:36 pm)
    Some high-end vehicles have anti-rollover technology, but the standard VSC in most vehicles have nothing to specifically help that. They just help you to maintain control.

    Every new Ford, i.e. it's new SUVs and CUVs, with AdvanceTrac and RSC has the same exact roll control as every new Volvo. "

    OK, but this discussion started when I stated that the 2006 Escape Hybrid I was considering seemed tippy, and that year did not have any stability control.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    here is the nhtsa definition of the dynamic test and 'tip':

    9. How is the dynamic maneuvering test conducted?

    The dynamic maneuvering test uses a heavily loaded vehicle, to represent a five-occupant load, and a full tank of gas. Using a fishhook pattern, the vehicle simulates a high-speed collision avoidance maneuver—steering sharply in one direction, then sharply in the other direction—within about one second. Test instruments on the vehicle measure if the vehicle's inside tires lift off the pavement during the maneuver ("inside" meaning the left wheels if turning left, and the right wheels if turning right). The vehicle is considered to have tipped up in the maneuver if both inside tires lift at least two inches off the pavement simultaneously.

    The tip-up/no tip-up results are then used with the SSF measurement as inputs in a statistical model that estimates the vehicle's overall risk of rollover in a single-vehicle crash. The overall risk of rollover for the particular vehicle will fall into one of five ranges of rollover risk and thus determine its star rating (1 through 5 stars).

    seems vague to me. what is 'high speed'? it didn't actually roll over, either. it just felt like it.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    OK, but this discussion started when I stated that the 2006 Escape Hybrid I was considering seemed tippy, and that year did not have any stability control.


    I'm not sure what your point is because I wasn't responding to anything you typed. Also, a 2006 Escape would not fall into the category of a "new" Ford. Only 2007 and 2008 models fit that bill now. The "new" model Escape is the 2008 and it does have AT with RSC. Besides, I always felt our 2005 Escape was too tippy and I noted that in a previous conversation with blueidgod.

    Are you considering trading your Freestyle in for a Taurus X which will have AT with RSC among other things?
  • richk6richk6 Posts: 87
    It may seem vague to you, but not vague enough to CR. That's why they do not recommend any of the tipped up vehicles in the rollover test.

    Vehicles don't need "high speed" to rollover in an emergency maneuver. Especially higher profile vehicles such as suvs.

    You state "it actually didn't roll over, either. it just felt like it."

    I rather drive an suv that has a lower risk of rollover. One that doesn't even "feel" like it will.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    I rather drive an suv that has a lower risk of rollover. One that doesn't even "feel" like it will.


    A vehicle can be more likely to tip but never "feel" like it will. I'd put our Explorer into that group. It never feels tippy yet it has a higher likelihood of tipping than the Escape IIRC. I could be wrong about that particular example but I'd wager there are others to prove my point.

    I can say that we do "feel" much safer in the Explorer than we did in the Escape though. All the safety nannies and the sheer size of the thing greatly influence that.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    i understand that there are people out there that take everything that CR writes as gospel.
    other than that test, both the escape and cr-v have been around for a while and they have not been associated with being rollover risks.
    risk tolerance does play into it. some are ok with driving on 2 wheels all the time(motorcyclists). :P
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Best Honda Ever

    I first encountedred this Honda in Japan in 2001, at Honda headquarters in Aoyama. It is even more amazing in person.

    I think we all know which company invests more into future proofing itself, and it is NOT FORD

    Markets currently covered by Honda:
    Automotive
    Motorcycle
    Marine
    Power equipment
    Robotics
    Air planes
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Wow! I need to rush out and buy a CR-V TOMORROW after seeing that. :sick:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I just traded my Accord for a Ford Escape. After being a Honda devotee for years, Ford finally roped me in, even without much of a discount!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Oh yeah, April Fools! :)
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Wow! I need to rush out and buy a CR-V TOMORROW after seeing that.

    Maybe you should give your money to the company that invests in the future, and will be there to back you up with parts when you need them.

    I have no problem getting parts from Honda dealer for my 1983 Honda Bike. I do remember having hard time getting Ford parts in 1999 for girlfriend's 1988 Ford Taurus. I had to go aftermarket, since the dealer said Ford did not supply those parts anymore.

    Can you say with 100% confidence that Ford will be around in 20 years when you need parts for your Ford product? Of course, there is a big chance that by that time current Ford vehicle will not be running anyway, so why bother making parts for it.

    And no, Scape2, 75,000 miles is not long distance enough to judge vehicle's reliability.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,919
    75,000 miles is not long distance enough to judge vehicle's reliability.

    That's plenty long enough if it keeps breaking down. :P

    I figured my van earned the reliable tag after getting to 100k without any significant issues. Age does in my cars more than the miles but I'm hard pressed to think of any ride I want to pay more than $3 or $4k for once it passes 100k. If it's a higher end car that maybe justifies a premium price at high miles, the potential maintenance costs kills my enthusiasm.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Maybe you should give your money to the company that invests in the future, and will be there to back you up with parts when you need them.

    I'll give my money to the company that makes vehicles that I or my wife like. I will not throw it all at one company because they built a robot and an airplane.

    Can you say with 100% confidence that Ford will be around in 20 years when you need parts for your Ford product?

    If I kept a vehicle for more than 3 years I might worry about that.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,732
    "I'm not sure what your point is because I wasn't responding to anything you typed. "

    I think you were following the train of messages that started with my statement.

    No, I don't think I will be going for a Taurus X. I like the CVT and I don't think the vehicle needs stability control. In any case mine in only 1 year old at this point...
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    I don't think the vehicle needs stability control

    It's very refreshing to hear that. The way people used to argue about that on the mid-sized sedan thread was crazy IMO. I think it should at least be an option on everything but SUVs and not necessarily standard.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,732
    "It's very refreshing to hear that. The way people used to argue about that on the mid-sized sedan thread was crazy IMO. I think it should at least be an option on everything but SUVs and not necessarily standard."

    I heard on the radio a few minutes ago that the government just mandated VSC on all cars starting in 2010.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Waste of consumer money IMO. I don't mind paying for airbags, side door beams, and emission controls. I do mind having to pay for VSC. Especially if it can't be turned off easily or if it's highly intrusive like Toyota's system seems to be.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I agree in a way. I think that a DEFEATABLE VSC would be a good thing on all cars. Defeatable like I know Honda's is... push a button, and it is completely off. Not "reduced" like Mercedes, etc...
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Defeatable like I know Honda's is... push a button, and it is completely off.

    Right on. Our Explorer lets you use a reduced mode or shut it off completely. There are times you may not want it and I fear this new mandate will bring many a system that are cheap and non-driver friendly just so they say they put VSC in the vehicle. Can you see Kia or Suzuki putting a nice VSC system in their econoboxes? It's going to be cheap and dirty IMO.

    Also, I don't feel a car like the Civic needs VSC. What's the base price going to jump to after they have to add it? I think we're going to be staring at $18,000+ base prices for compact cars now. Prices of the systems will come down for the manufacturers eventually but I doubt they'll pass the savings on to the consumers.
  • dromedariusdromedarius Posts: 307
    Waste of consumer money IMO. I don't mind paying for airbags, side door beams, and emission controls. I do mind having to pay for VSC. Especially if it can't be turned off easily or if it's highly intrusive like Toyota's system seems to be.

    Are you kidding me?!? Stability control is UNIVERSALLY hailed as the biggest improvement in safety since the seatbelt. Not airbags. Not structural changes. Stability control. The government thinks so. All of the major car magazines. Yikes!!!

    :surprise:
  • dromedariusdromedarius Posts: 307
    When was Ford going to let us know about this? Escape engines starting on fire?!? The blue oval covers up yet ANOTHER safety hazard! It should be called the "No Escape"!
Sign In or Register to comment.