Howdy, Stranger!

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





CR-V vs Escape

14142444647278

Comments

  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Am I reading some excuses above?

    If we go by safety equipment, I believe it is a draw. Except for the CR-V's dual pre-tensioners on the seat belts. (note that the seat belts were recalled early in the CR-V, all seems well now)
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    All right, sometimes I get really into this Escape versus CRV argument, but when it comes down to it their isn't a whole heck of a big difference between the two vehicles.

    The only "major differences" I see are the following things.
    -looks
    -towing
    -reliability, only assuming statistics are accurate

    Other then the major differences I stated we might as well be arguing the differences between Purdue and Gold-n-plump chicken breasts!
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    YOu claim the CRV is safer in a crash.. you fail once again to say OFFSET crash ONLY. You are making this out to look like the Escape is a tin can! One test, I say again ONE TEST the offset crashtest the CRV does better than the Escape, lets make this clear. And you fail to mention the lost data of the IIHS they mention in a lower paragraph. You have to wonder why they didn't upgrade that catagorey when they compared it with Mazda/Fords data and said it was actually good??
    Playing down the vehicles ability to stop in the first place to avoid an accident is a typical Honda ploy. The Escape stops better than the CRV, has lower repair costs, out tows, is more powerful, has more payload, more GVWR. The V6 is an advantage in vehicles of this weight. You forget I drove an automatic CRV up Hwy 26 over MT Hood loaded down with 4 adults and about 400lbs of weight.. the 160HP 2.4 had to gasp and shift.. The Escape takes this added weight with no problems because of its 40HP/40ft/lbs of torque advantage..
    My vacation was great! Like I said saw more RAV4's in California than CRV's and Escapes.. Don't know why? I would take the CRV over that dinky RAV4. The RAV4 is a spendy little bugger..
  • hondaman01hondaman01 Posts: 163
    We are not talking about my 2001 CRV. We are comparing todays vehicles and the Escape is not even as good as my 2001 which is a 7-8 year old design. data is data and you have been asking for it and after all this back bumper thing, it is nice to have real proof for once to show you.

    I was hit in the back at 30mph in March by a new Explorer and received half the expense (damage wise) as he did. So I think Ford has a way to go yet with safety.

    Honda has used valuable knowledge from racing incidents and transmitted this to their passenger cars. Racing technology does pay off and Honda is light years ahead of Ford there.
  • hondaman01hondaman01 Posts: 163
    Scape you are starting to repeat yourself again. We all know there is a 40hp adavntage and a four foot braking distance blah blah.... No one is going to disagree with you there. You all wanted comparisons and now they are coming. I don't care about how fast I can get to the other stop sign or towing 3000 pounds....I want safety and reliability and quality.
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    Scape, you messed up on saying the Escape has a different ground clearance then what ford sites! Then you don't 'fes up to the mistake...

    Then you say that the crv only "beats" the escape in the offset category! You are wrong, my friend, the crv also bested the escape in the national highway test as well! Are you that forgetful!

    You also forgot that my girl friend has a v6 and it does not beat my CRV in the 0 to 60 test!!! SAD very sad because it is a V6. You also pail in comparison in the mileage category.

    By the way, in regards to what you said a while ago about the Escape having a more "solid" underbelly, look at both and support your claim! What was that comment all about? You are a "fellow" engineer, right? And I fail to see the weakness in the CRV.... if anything the CRV has the same under belly as the escape, if not more refined!!!!

    To all the other Escape owners, I apologize for scapes2 over site of the obvious!

    We both have great vehicles and he forgets what he states in his previous posts..

    By the way, scape2 you make this site very entertaining and you make me want to figure out whether the Purdue or the Gold-n-Plump chicken breasts are better!!!
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    hondaman,

    I knew you were going to say that! The forum is titled "CR-V vs. Escape". Where in there do you see a model year designation. If anything you should be comparing the vehicle that you drive to the Escape because you actually know something about it. Have you ever even driven a 2002 CR-V? You may not even like it because it is quite different from the older one you know. I for one know that I prefer the older model's interior and exterior to the new one.


    Do you really want to compare the numbers between the 2001 or 2002 Escape and the 1997-2001 CR-V? The Escape was designed to compete directly with that model. They had to try and make it bigger and better in almost every category to do so. The new CR-V returns the favor, and it will continue to have slightly better numbers until the next iteration of the Escape hits the street. At least that's the way it usually goes.


    Here are the links to the 2001's. Look at the numbers yourself.


    http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/ford/escape/4drxlt4wdwagon/specs.html?id=lin0066


    http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/honda/crv/4drexawdwagon/specs.html?id=lin0066


    If the Escape doesn't better the CR-V in a category (we're still only talking about tenths of inches here) it nearly matches it. It's almost like looking at a mirror image.


    Your older CR-V has identical crash test data (had a four star in the NHTSA test and marginal in IIHS) and braking distance for the 2000 (Edmunds does not list it for the 2001 for some reason) is 141 feet. That's a difference of ten feet according to this site. Refresh my memory, how is your older model better?


    Racing safety? Ever hear of NASCAR? Several of Ford's vehicles are rated at five stars all around. Most (soon to be all) of their SUV's offer side curtain air-bags as an option as well as adjustable pedals (for those who are vertically challenged). Their vehicles are no less safe than anyone else's

  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I too have done comparison tests between 2002 CRV's and the present Escape. Noway does the automatic CRV beat the v6 Escape in 0-60.. and you have to rev the crap out of the 5spd to even come close. keep dreaming...
    ground clearance for the Escape with the P235 16" wheels is 8.5". The P225 with 15" wheels is the 7.8 everyone talks about..
    The CRV bests the Escape in ONE category of crashtests only... The offset crashtest. This is both at the NHSTA and IIHS sites here on the net.
    the Escape was being designed well before the 2002 CRV. It takes a good 2 years or more to design/construct and bring a vehicle to production. The Escape was being sold in 2000 as a 2001 model..
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    LOL. I guess you're right, Baggs. Those could be construed as excuses. The point still stands, though. The current Escape didn't score significantly better than several models designed and built back in 93-95.

    As for the model year, we tend to compare the latest models with each other as those are available to the public. If you want to make up a "Used CR-V vs Used Escapes" thread, then we can discuss the older models.

    Scape2 - An offset crash is not the same thing as one side of the NHTSA full-frontal crash. The CR-V bests the Escape by a more than significant margin in the IIHS off-set crash. It also beats the Escape in the NHTSA full-frontal crash by a margin of one star.

    The CR-V is the first small SUV to earn top marks in both safety crash tests. The off-set and side impact results were duplicated in the Euro NCAP tests. The CR-V is also the first SUV to score high marks in the Euro NCAP pedestrian safety test.

    I'd also recommend that you double check your claims about ground clearance. I have no doubt that the Escape with larger tires is higher than the 7.8 standard. However, I suspect that you are adding the total difference in tire height, rather than just the half.
  • muckyduckmuckyduck Posts: 219
    "It takes a good 2 years or more to design/construct and bring a vehicle to production."

    Funny you should say that - a salesman at the Ford dealer where I got my daughter a Mustang (could not talk her out of buying a Ford, sad to say) told me that Ford has really cut back on design time and this was the reason he would not buy an Escape for at least two years to give Ford time to fix all the problems - gee, didn't the Escape/Tribute have some recalls when they first hit the streets???

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,952
    To summarize what "6 or 7" editorial and data folks around Edmunds say:

    We have verified and re-verified this data with Ford. We rely on Ford's published value, even though Ford agrees with us that this spec should be greater for the 02/03 Ford Escape's with different wheel/tire sizes.

    So even though we (Edmunds.com) know the ground clearance spec should be greater for the Escapes configured with standard 16 inch wheels, we go by what Ford publishes. /end of summary/

    So please rag on Ford to fix their data, since that's who we rely on :-)

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    varmint,
    The design year does not make any difference in this case. A new model can perform poorly in a crash test no matter when it was built. Occupant safety was not ignored back in 93-95 when the first CR-V was designed. Both vehicles performed marginally their first time around. Honda made some necessary adjustments, and now it bests just about everything else in it's class.

    As for the comparisons to older models, I just find it odd that some folks get all excited about a vehicle that they don't even own. Take a look at what you are driving before you start dumping on what I am driving. I'll just leave it at that because I'm trying to be mature about all this.

    davegh,
    I forgot to get the Motor Trend test numbers last night. They did have the 2002 CR-V besting the 2001 Escape by .1 sec. in the 0-60. However, the Escape finished ahead (I forget how much but I know it was a little more than .1 sec) in the quarter mile.
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    First of all, my crv beat my friends v6 when we gunned the cars from 40 to 60 mph! There was no comparison there! We also ran two 0 to 40mph races and I won one by a hair and she won one by a hair. The CRV dragged from 25 to 40 mph, it really dogged it compared to the V6 during that section. Both are automatics. Could it be the driving style? Possible, but both being automatics I can't imagine their is too much room for differences there.

    As for the crash test, Varmint is right, and that was my point exactly.

    I ran the numbers for the 225/70R15 and the 235/70R16. In theory your larger tires would give you a ground clearance of 8.43 inches. That is taking into account only half of the tire, as it should be. www.ford.com says the 235/70R16 has a ground clearance of 7.8 inches so thats not edmunds problem, that is certainly the manufacturers issue to work out.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    The MotorTrend data is similar to the drag race comparison posted above. When comparing the acceleration rate, the Escape comes off the line marginally quicker, it gains notably faster up to about 40 or 50mph. Then there is a big flat spot in the Escape's performance. That is where the CR-V takes the advantage. From about 40-60 (or maybe it was 50-60), the CR-V accelerates much faster than the Escape. It makes up the difference and then some. The CR-V reached 60mph in 8.9, and the Escape in 9.0 seconds.

    Over distance, the Escape does better by MT's data. No question about it.

    Both were automatics. Conditions of the test were equal. Both vehicles were revved up to redline. It's the same data used in the TruckTrend comparison. Comments from the same article state that the CR-V's block "felt" like a V6" and was much smoother than the Escape's at higher rpms. This is consistent with what other mags have reported.

    Overall, I would give the Escape the nod as the better performer. Though, not by much. My report card would show an A- for the CR-V in acceleration. The Escape would get a solid A. Based on that data, neither deserves an A+.

    Of course, anyone looking for performance differences as small as these is probably an enthusiast. If they are concerned with half a second at the quarter mile, then they are probably not going to object to a manual transmission. This is one area where the CR-V comes better optioned. When comparing acceleration times with the short geared, more efficient 5 speed, the CR-V is the Escape's equal if not the better performer. The 5 speed has been consistently scoring in the mid 8 second range with quick quarter mile times/speeds as well. That is an A+ performance.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Yes, but don't forget to read the lateral g's and slalom speeds of the two. When you're done, compare them to a semi-sporty car and see if you still want to go out for a spirited drive. I'll stay far behind thank you very much.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    That never stopped people from buying Mustangs.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Or Corvettes for that matter, but they didn't roll over as easily when pushed to those limits. Both cars have higher limits now though.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Does your wife have the XLT V6 Escape with the 16" wheels and P235 tires? Park both your CRV and her vehicle side by side and take a look under for yourself. I have done this. There is no way in he... you can say the CRV has more ground clearance. Anyone can do this and see this for themselves..
    Consumer reports has the Escape at 8.5 second 0-60 times.. This is the Honda bible!
    Another advantage over the CRv is the Escape is built in the good ole U.S.A. Made by a fellow American! Support U.S workers, buy North American..
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Posts: 593
    Scape, I don't know if you've heard, but to buy a car built in the USA, you have to buy a Japanese brans...American cars are built in Canada and Mexico. I love how wacky globalization is...check out the following:

    American brands (Ford, GM) built in:
    Canada, Mexico, South America

    Japanese brands (Honda, Toyota, Nissan) built in:
    England, USA

    German brands (VW) built in:
    Brazil, Mexico

    Korean brands (Hyundai, Kia) built in:
    (Surprise of surprises!) KOREA!!!!
    However, soon, to be built in USA. Hah! So much for simplicity!

    So what you have to choose is whether or not you want a Korean, Brazilian, Mexician, Canadian, or Japanese car...since most of the cars made in the USA by Japanese car companies get sent to JAPAN to be sold! Why? Better quality than their other factories. :) So you can only buy American if you're Japanese.

    Go figure.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    I believe the Escape's point of assembly is near Kansas City.

    Whether this should be an important factor in buying a car is a discussion topic in itself!
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    I finally remembered to look the Motor Trend numbers up. Here they are:

    Model--------------2001 Escape XLT------2002 CR-V
    Date---------------Tested 12/00---------Tested 12/01
    Price--------------$23,305--------------$23,000
    Engine-------------3.0 V-6--------------2.4 I-4
    Driveline----------4A/4WD---------------4A/AWD
    Max Power----------200------------------160
    0-60 (sec)---------9.0------------------8.9
    1/4M (sec/mph)-----16.7/83.1------------17.0/79.4
    Braking 60-0---125 ft.--------------133 ft.
    Slalom (mph)---59.0-----------------58.1

    That's their most up to date data. I don't have the actual articles any more, so I can't tell you if any abnormal conditions existed. Their web site doesn't seem to have the CR-V test either.

    Also, I'm assuming that it is an EX model because of the price. For some reason it is the only Honda without a specified trim level listed. Shouldn't make much difference though.

    *edit*
    Sorry about the "jumbling" of the alignment. It did look nice when I first typed it.
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    I saw your troll for me in #1292:
    "My vacation was great! Like I said saw more RAV4's in California than CRV's and Escapes.. Don't know why? I would take the CRV over that dinky RAV4. The RAV4 is a spendy little bugger.. "

    Sorry I was too busy to reply immediately.
    But, OK, I can play now.

    You keep bringing up how your Escape out-accelerated a new-from-the-lot CR-V that your Honda salesman-buddy provided.

    I pointed out before that it might not have been fair to compare a very green engine's performance with one that had a few miles on it (yours).
    If I recall correctly, you even agreed with me back then.

    But now, you are back to, "I proved the Escape is much faster!"

    And did you ever think what your comparison test did to that new Honda engine?
    Did you think about the unsuspecting buyer who gets a new vehicle with a green engine that (probably) has been red-lined?
    Do you care?

    Inky dinky doo.
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    scape, I agreed with you on the ground clearence on the 235 tires, I calculated 8.43 inches.

    I know engines have a break in period and it is very important to take certain precautions. The main reason for this is the engine metal is young and needs to be treated randomly, in the regards don't drive your car only at 60 mph for the first 1000 miles. Why, because your drivetrain will configure to that speed in terms of metal expansion, etc... So redlining a new engine is not nearly a big of deal as varying your driving speeds during the break in period. That one burts of redline speed shouldn't create to much metal movement. Did I exaplain myself ok? I am rushed during my brief lunch break today.
  • hondaman01hondaman01 Posts: 163
    Thanks for your data baggs but my question is why would a company base a new vehicle and its safety ratings on a model that was about to be revised? As we all know, Honda improves each of their vehicles every 4 model years so why would Ford base their new 2001 model on a CRV that was at its end? No matter what you say, my 2001 CRV is a little ahead of an Escape and mine was developed 7 years ago! pretty odd!

    YES I have driven a new CRV! I rented one for two works for my work and we were four on board and drove 4000km's! I am sure that I have many more miles in this car than you do! I was very impressed at how Honda makes a 4 cylinder so great! Contrary to what 2 of you say, I never had any problem rolling at 120-140 (km's) at ANY time and passing was a breeze! I am amazed how Honda makes the best and smoothest 4's of anybody! BUT I will agree that my experience (UUUUGGGGHHHH!) with my rented Tribute did make me believe that there is no way an auto CRV could beat the 6. I found it quite strong even though it never lasted more than three days!!!!!!.

    As for your comparison to Nascar....well you picked the wrong guy for that. I have been a racing maniac for the last 20 years with Formula 1 and CART and everything else! Nascar is developed on basic mechanics and high technology is not part of the picture. Formula 1 cars cost 5 million bucks each and have more computing tech than an F18! Ford does quite well in racing and that is why I am surprised that they have not really put this technology into their cars as much as Honda or Toyota! The Mustang is a great car BUT only now does it seem to be better developed even though it is quite problematic. I had one before and I loved it but it did need a lot of tender loving care.

    Scape no matter how much you want to win the argument over acceleration (though I do tend to agree somewhat) the 4 of Honda is way too close to that BIG 6 even with its 40hp advantage. I know, I tried both and yes I believe the Escape is faster but not by much. You also keep stating that it revs higer.....ALL Hondas rev higher...that is part of the technology. Their 6's rev MUCH lower than your Escape.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    You missed my whole point.. I did not say buy U.S. manufacturers, I said buy vehicles built here in North America. Honda/Mitsu/Volskwagon/Toyota, heck even BMW's are made here in NORTH AMERICA... Don't forget I own a Honda Accord.. MADE IN The U.S.A.!
    HOndaman.. Your saying the 2001 Escape, that was released in 2000 was actually made to compete with the 2002 CRV??? HUH?? I would bet the development of the Escape/Trib started in or about 1997. HOnda/Toyota and even Suzuki/Kia had such good success with mini-utes Ford/Jeep/Saturn/Hyundai wanted some of the action.
    I sure like the way you just love to justify in your mind the 4cyl being more powerful, quicker, whichever than the V6 in the Escape. 40HP does make a difference along with the extra 40ft/lbs of torque. Why aren't you using the consumer reports 0-60 numbers for the Escape? You sure love to quote consumer reports on everything else??
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    hondaman,
    Your feelings about how your older CR-V compares to the Escape are noted. But, as all you Honda people like to say so much, the numbers don't lie.

    How is it that you think the Escape was designed (several years ago) to compete with the 2002 CR-V? Which, by the way, was not seen or heard of until over a year after Ford released the Escape. Are they somehow going to design the 2004 Taurus to compete with the 2007 Accord instead of the 2003 too?
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Clearly, the Escape was not developed to compete with the 2002 CR-V. I'm sure the 1996 CR-V was only one of many benchmarks that Mazda used in the Tribscape's development.

    However, it is expected that the Tribscape was designed to be better than the old CR-V. Crash safety is one area where they failed. As a result, the 2002 CR-V has effectively leap-frogged the Tribscape by a whole model generation.
  • bascottbascott Posts: 27
    The CRV and Escape are close, that is why when I was looking it came down to the two of them. In the end I bought the CRV. Obviously the 6 is faster than the 4 at a cost of gas milage. I have never had any power issues with my CRV uphill with a full load or otherwise. In the end it came down to Honda quality and resale value.
  • corynatcorynat Posts: 52
    0-60 is pretty pointless. Getting into traffic. Turning left across lanes. Passing. Those are things that happen everyday. Having owned both, the Escape does those things better than the Honda (2000 CR-V is my only point of ref.) No contest.

    Looks - Subjective

    Reliability - Until proven wrong - Honda

    Fit and Finish - Equal (surprisingly)

    Resale - Honda, hands down. Hardly had to argue price for trade-in.

    Of course, this is ongoing. Had three problems with the CR-V in two years, all minor. Waiting to see with the Escape.
  • muckyduckmuckyduck Posts: 219
    The 2002 CR-V has no problems "turning left across lanes, passing, getting into traffic". There is a contest and the Escape is really not much better than the CR-V even with a bigger engine.

    Looks - agree are subjective - I think the Tribute is better looking than the Escape.

    Reliability - agree Honda wins.

    Fit and Finish - some 'expert' reviews have rated the Escape/Tribute poorly in this area. Have not found any reviews knocking the CR-V fit and finish.

    Resale - agree Honda wins.
Sign In or Register to comment.