Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

1402403405407408417

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, it is my parents' dream to retire to the gulf coast, so they bought one when they could afford to (before the prices inflated to double what they were when they bought it). In Birmingham, a vacation, other than going to the lake/river, is always at least 3 hours away. The bright side, is that Mountains are 350 miles (Gatlinburg, TN) and the beach is 290 miles (Gulf Shores/Orange Beach, AL), so you are between two very different locales.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Kind of funny you mention this. Yes, I did change my oil in my Escape, yes I did drip oil on the hot manifold. Yet.. For some strange reason my Escape never caught fire!!

    Yet, the fact that mine has not caught on fire means nothing to you??
  • twaintwain Posts: 185
    I am looking for a $20-24,000 SUV and I recently test drove the 2008 Escape XLT and a 2007 Honda CRV.
    -----------------------------------

    My wife and I recently bought a 2007 Mercury Mariner, the same vehicle as the Escape. It's the Premier model and stickered at 26k. We're both around 50 so ride, entry/exit and comfort are important to us too.

    As for ride, it's very smooth on smooth roads but can get a little "jouncy" on bumpier pavement. It's only a 103" wheelbase.

    Entry/exit... our last vehicle was a 2003 Saturn Vue and it was excellent for entry/exit. One of the best SUVs in that regard. The Mariner is a little higher to step in and out but still not difficult.

    My main complaint with the V6 Mariner is MPG. I'm sure the CRV would have it beat. The Mariner/Escape should have a 5sp auto but only has a 4sp. The 4cyl Escape with a 5sp manual gets decent MPG if that's an option.

    Unless an SUV type vehicle is a must, there are other alternatives for comfort, space, mpg and ease of entry. The Mazda 5 and the Kia Rondo to name two.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    Nope, not the same. The gasket in question on the CR-V remained behind on SOME CR-Vs when the oil filter was changed. Operator error on the part of the oil changer.

    The Escapes issue was incorrectly installed or missing gaskets at the point of manufacture. Completely different.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    The cause was, according to the article posted earlier, a gasket that was manufactured incorrectly and had a higher probability of melting and sticking. ALL of them were installed in the factory making this problem a build problem. i.e. they built the vehicles with a bad part.

    I think you are trying to twist it into an installation error which is not what I was arguing. The problem originated at the factory for both and that's all I'm saying. You guys can blame the oil changers all you want but the fact still remains that Honda put a bad part on the CR-V and didn't care enough about the customer to recall them.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "You guys can blame the oil changers all you want but the fact still remains that Honda put a bad part on the CR-V and didn't care enough about the customer to recall them."

    This is a huge double standard that exists.. some don't see it.. are refuse to see it?? :shades:
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    This is a huge double standard that exists...

    Why are we continuing with this?

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Beats me. Last I checked, there were no incidents involving the 2007 CR-V, manufacturer OR mechanic related, so its relevance eludes my understanding.
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    "You guys can blame the oil changers all you want but the fact still remains that Honda put a bad part on the CR-V and didn't care enough about the customer to recall them."

    This is a huge double standard that exists.. some don't see it.. are refuse to see it??


    There is a HUGE difference when a maintenance item is faulty. Something that is only going to be on the car for 5000 miles, as opposed to a lifetime items such as ABS module, or the rear bearing hubs.

    Honda did issue an order for the dealers to replace all filter on the incoming CR-V's with the redesigned ones.

    Even if they issued a recall, what would it be for? Oil filter recall? By the time fires were happening the faulty filters have already been removed. I don't see logic in recalling something that has alredy been removed. Do you?

    Sometimes I wonder if logic is truly a gift only a few posess.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,910
    The impression I got (perception is reality, right?) was that Honda was playing hide the ball on the filter issue. Reminded me of Toyota's handling of the sludge issue. The ease of access of information nowadays has forced corporations to be more open, whether they want to be or not.

    The smartest corporations, imo, are the ones who blog about all their internal goings-on; if there's a screw-up somewhere, better that we learn about it from the company and have the employees tell us what they are doing about the problem. When we know the people running the corporation, we tend to trust their actions more (and we become more forgiving of the inevitable screw-ups as well).

    And yeah, I read the recent Wired article about radical transparency the other day (link).

    GM seems to have the right idea - they did the "make your own Chevy commercial" and let the obnoxious ones stay up and their FastLane Blog is pretty well known. I don't know if Honda or Ford blogs for public consumption or not, but if they do, they need to get the word out better.
  • dromedariusdromedarius Posts: 307
    I can see where the comparison might be drawn but I don't agree. People whose CR-V burned up were covered. I'm assuming Ford is going to cover the people whose Escapes burned up. Toyota has blamed the customer for the sludge problems. I still don't know why Toyota handled that issue they did. It was obvious to everyone there was a design flaw. I have a sludged Chevy Prizm (Corolla engine) so I have researched this issue as much as humanly possible.

    On the other hand, Honda didn't want to take responsibility for something that shouldn't have been an issue with a competent oil changer. I understand that, and it's why I don't take my car to Jiffy Lube or Wal-Mart to get my oil changed.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    On the other hand, Honda didn't want to take responsibility for something that shouldn't have been an issue with a competent oil changer.

    I'm down with that. However seeing that they blamed the problem on a faulty part they should have owned up to it more IMO. Notifying oil changers should have only been part of the solution. Notifying owners too would have been the best action to take especially after seeing CR-Vs catch fire after the oil changers were instructed to be careful.
  • dromedariusdromedarius Posts: 307
    I don't even know if they said the part was faulty. They said inadvertent exposure to the salty air during transport from Japan compromised the gaskets, which then made them more likely to stick. Even at that point, everyone who changes oil knows you have to get the gasket off or the next filter won't seal and the oil will drain out.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    The link the host posted said the rubber was exposed to something when it was manufactured and therefore had a higher tendency to melt and stick. It said nothing of salty sea air.

    So I read they were screwed on too tight, a host showed us where it might have been the rubber of the gasket itself, and now you are telling us it was the sea air during shipment. Which was it? Or are there more excuses that exonerate Honda and somehow excuse them from protecting their customers better? :P
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,910
    In any event, it's past history, so let's give it a rest and give Tides a break from re-reading the whole history (I'm off on holiday and don't care, LOL).

    Anyone cross-shopping lately?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    That was bound to happen soon.

    I'll still take our Explorer over any of these small utes. The gas mileage is the only weakness about it but I don't mind. It is an extremely comfortable and useful vehicle to have in the garage. I say this as a father of two. If not for that then the smaller utes are the way to go IMO.
  • dromedariusdromedarius Posts: 307
    People's apparent allergies to first the station wagon, and then the minivan. If you need room for kids and luggage and you don't need other people's approval on your choice of vehicle, a minivan should be your first choice. Not to mention the superior safety and fuel economy. As the next best thing, it's no surprise to me that the CR-V has passed the Explorer and the Escape, since I believe a vehicles purpose is to get you from Point A to Point B:

    1) Safely

    2) Efficiently

    Honda has always gotten this. Maybe America is STARTING to catch on!

    :P

    BTW, our 2005 CR-V got 26 MPG on our last tank (all-time high is 29.5 MPG). And my 2001 Chevy Prizm got 39 MPG. My oldest knows we only drive in "Mama's car", though, although I'm willing to bet he doesn't know it's because it's the one with all the airbags.

    :shades:
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    People's apparent allergies to first the station wagon, and then the minivan.

    I don't either drom, but my wife drives the family vehicle so she gets to pick. We've sat in and drove minivans and wagons and she just will not own one. I really like both so it's a point of tension when time to shop for the new family hauler unfortunately.

    Not to mention the superior safety and fuel economy.

    I'll give you the fuel economy but the safety is a toss up IMO. Especially if you live in an area that gets snow 5 months of the year as we do.
Sign In or Register to comment.