Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
sorry for chaotic post
Scape2 is correct that the CR-V is rated for 38.9 for the EX models. This is because the EX includes a moonroof as standard equipment. If you add a moonroof (optional equipment) to the Escape, it's headroom will probably drop by a similar number. I have not been able to find a headroom measurement for the Escape with a moonroof. If anyone has that information, then we can compare the exact figures. Until then, I have to assume that the difference with a moonroof is similar to that of the CR-V.
I cannot find any other measurements that could even remotely be disputed. As for his questions about how things are measured...
"Are the rear leg room numbers taken with the seats fully in their [sp. edit] back position?" - Yes, they are. This is standard testing methodology for all vehicles. The same methods were used to measure the Escape.
"Are the cargo area dimensions taken with the backseats fully in their [sp. edit] forward position?" - No, they are not. I explained this earlier. The CR-V's volume of 33.5 cu.ft. is measure with the seats in the rearward position. In other words, you could slide the rear seats forward to increase cargo volume even higher than the 33.5 it is rated for.
As for tires, both Scape2 and Dave are correct, each in their own little ways. Smaller tires do increase acceleration off the line. Smaller tires do increase mpg at slow speeds (less rotation resistance). However, they do decrease mpg when on the open highway. That said, the CR-V still does better than the Escape in either city or hghwy estimates. The discussion is theoretical. The results are a fact.
On the other hand, consumers have rated both vehicles. If you look at those ratings, the CR-V comes out slightly ahead.
That said, I wouldn't trust either method as the single authority on the subject. You have to look at multiple sources. For example, CR gives the CR-V its recommendation, while the Escape goes without. Contrary to Scape2's assumptions, I do not put a great deal of weight on CR's reviews and would not use them as the single authority on the subject.
Another source that I use for reviews, for consumer reviews that is.
www.carreview.com
CRV wins
At low speeds or from a standstill, larger tires take more effort to get moving. There is more rotational mass to get moving. However, at higher speeds, that rotational mass is already spinning with a bit of momentum. The extra distance travelled (larger circumference) makes up for any extra effort needed to rotate the wheels.
Here's the example someone used to explain it to me. Push a small snowball around the yard. As you go, it picks up more snow and gets larger. It's much easier to push it when it's small vs. when it gets big. The big snow ball has more mass and a larger circumference. However, once you get the larger snowball moving, it's much harder to stop. It has greater momentum once it gets going and each rotation around its axis takes it farther.
1. Whenever a small tire is accelerating it is more efficient for mpg. True, I agree with what you said.
2. When the small tire is no longer accelerating, a larger tire would get better mpg. Fine, but only if you are in an ideal "frictionless" environment.
3. When you go up any hills anytime, you are accelerating the tire, therefore the small tire will get better mileage. You still have to move the outside mass as if you were taking off from a standstill. Therefore the smaller tire would still get better mileage.
Second Why is the Expected resale value for a 2002 Escape 17,740 after 1 year under the TCO screen yet when you plug in the numbers on the TMV for a 2001 Escape (like mine) it comes to almost 20K for private party, 22K for dealer, and 19K for trade in?? This is what I am talking about.. These numbers do not add up.. Please explain Steve... If this information is not correct please get it updated immediatly because Edmunds is misleading people.
Hondaman.. I feel the same way about the CRV, the 4cyl is buzzy at high speeds, takes a lot of prodding to get going, noisy and rough. The interior of the CRV is no better or worse than in the Escape. Honda hides its TSB information.. yet you Honda fans think its ok.. Sounds like you are starting to question your choice of vehicle you purchased. Your calling me uptight and immature? As much as you want to downplay the V6 in the Escape its not going to work the numbers just don't add up. There is too much information on the net. When I get the ok from Steve I will bombard this chat room with reviews on the Tribute/Escape from other places around the net..
Now I have to question the numbers on the interior room of the CRV. The Escape seats don't move back or forward. yet they have the seats in the fully back position when measuring legroom? Varmit please tell me where you know for sure they do not move the seat into the fully forward position when taking measurements for cargo space.
Escape has 201HP@ 5900rpms, the CRV has 160HP at 6,000 RPMS.. Escape reaches its 41HP advantage 100 RPMS before the CRV.. The 3.0 Duratec is a dual overhead cam 24V engine its a breather.. Just like the 2.4 with its 16V..
Next The Escape reaches its peak torque of 200ft/lbs at 4700 rpms, the CRV reaches its peak torque of 162ft/lbs at 3,600 RPMS. Plain and simple is the CRV is done pushing way before the Escape and at a LOWER RPM.
Next the CRV weighs in at 3,287lbs, the Escape 3,457. The CRv has a mere 170lb advantage.. To say the CRV does not loose in a performance/passing/merging/acceleration/ able to hold its own fully loaded up a steep incline, whatever you wish to call it duel is just plain dumb...
I would think that you would want your torque and horse power to max out at lower RPMS, obviously not to low but lower is better then redlinign right? Nonetheless you can't compare RPMs like that because they are two entirely different engines and the gear ratio betwen the two vehicles ARE different.
Secondly you never addressed or answered me when I talked about the smaller tires and the aerodynamic difference between the two vehicles. It takes more then HP to make a vehicle faster then another! In any case I think we can agree that they are comparable give or take a fraction of a second. To me I never could justify the power difference to be the deciding factor on which vehicle I like better especially because there is little difference in aceleration and yes this means pasing on mountains as well with the AC on!!!
Yes, the seats are all the way back when the EPA measured the volumes! Instead of us finding a source for such a silly notion that the EPA slides the seats foward and back to get measurements why don't you source your arguement for us. Instead of pulling this idea out of the air to add rhetoric to your stance.
In any case I think both vehicles are great, I chose the CRV, it was a no brainer to me and the crv met and exceeded my needs/desires!
for safe and stable high speeds.Mercedes they are not!I think 80 mph is fast enough and I don't
feel safe doing that.Climbing hills is another
matter.Not bogging down on hills is more important and that is where torque counts.I will
go a little slower in my CRV but enjoy the feel of
quality instead.
WRT the engines themselves... The CR-V uses Honda's i-VTEC. This controls timing, or how long the valves are open. It also controls lift, which is how wide the valves are open. That's what your traditional VTEC technology is capable of. The "i" part is the introduction of phase timing. The phase is when the valves are open with respect to the piston action.
What does all that mean? It means that the engines is able to work at maximum efficiency across a very wide rpm band. As a result, the CR-V makes 90% of peak torque from 2250 - 5500 rpms. See the link above. It's a very smooth power delivery.
Contrary to what Scape2 is assuming, the links I provided to those reviews show that the CR-V's engine is exceptionally smooth. I was not making reference to speed or power.
And I'm tired of reading this TSB nonsense. Scape2, here are the TSBs already. Search on "Honda Trucks", which is below Honda motorcycles. There are seven TSBs listed. You can get the information from the NHTSA.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/index.cfm
"The Honda CR-V’s cargo space is 33.5 cubic feet behind the rear seats (with the seats in their rearmost position) and 72 cubic feet total with the seats folded and tumbled forward." - Cars.com
If you ask me again, I will just start linking you to the same post over and over and over again.
This business about accelerating with the A/C on is nonsense. At least for the CR-V, I dunno about the Escape. The vehicle is capable of sensing when the engine is under heavy load. This would be when you floor it to merge into traffic or give it a significant amount of throttle to climb a steep hill. I'm talking about times when you need lots of acceleration. More than the average amount required to get you up to speed on the highway or away from a traffic light.
Anyway, under these conditions, the car temporarily shuts down the A/C compressor. There is no drain on the engine when you need maximum power from the engine.
I assume the Ford does this as well, but I haven't found anything to confirm it.
I don't know if the V6 does that or not as I did not see it in the manual, but I have not noticed it yet. My guess is that it does not, and that that function is reserved for four bangers only. My old ZX2 shut the A/C compressor off under hard acceleration and it really did help performance as I'm sure it does in the CR-V. But, when it does kick off, you lose the cold air coming through the vents (it turns warm). If you've ever drove through the mountains of WV or central PA on a hot summer day, you'll know what an inconvenience that really is. I have read of other CR-V owners who complained of the loss of cold air as well so apparently it is the same story.
Escape V6 (scroll down a little)
http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/2750.asp
CRV
http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/2891.asp
There are so many sites and reviews that show the CRV having a faster 0-60 time!
OH and check out the road/engine noise!!! Crv beats escape there as well!!! CRV is quieter in every category from...
1. idle noise
2. full accelleration noise
3. cruising 70 mph
4. coasting 70 mph
Remember, every 8 to 10 decibals is double the loudness to the human ear!
So, scape2......who's got the buzzy loud engine???
Anyways the CRV is quieter and less buzzy; so this source at least kills the contrary arguement!
Motor Trend,June 2002 edition, pages 138 & 139. V-6 Escape, automatic: 9.0 sec. for quarter mile.
I-4 CRV, automatic: 8.9 sec. for quarter mile.
Not C&D. Two automatics. CRV wins by a front license plate.
Still haven't heard from Steve.. about linking.. I'm about to let loose here with reviews about the Escape... If I get jumped on I'm going to his boss.. If Honda owners can link so can Ford owners..I am documenting all of these..
Your fooling yourself thinking the CRV will pull like the Escape with A/C on and a full load..
Gearing/tire size don't make up for a 41HP/40ft/lb of torque difference. Just keep justifying your lack of a V6.. This is good..
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Also, depending on where you live, it really isn't as uncommon as you might think. If you merge onto a freeway during both rush hours, that's twice a day (hard accel to catch up). If you drive up any hills that require a downshift to climb, count once for each hill. That's just what I can think of for going to and from work each day. Who knows how many more can happen after that.
Now, these are definitely not events that most people will take note of because they are short and spread out. But you do have to remember that each time that compressor is shut down, the clutch inside the unit is activated, then deactivated to bring it back online. That causes more wear and tear in the long run than what you would find on a normal unit that doesn't shut down during hard acceleration. Again, I don't know if the Escape V6 (I'm betting that the 4 cyl does) has that feature or not, but I for one can live without it.
Me thinks thou doest protest too much, Scape2. Your insistence only reveals your inner conclusion that the Escape is everything its critics say it is -- and probably more (you have to suffer as its owner, being reminded of your terrible mistake day after miserable day, hence your enormous amount of psychic energy bent on trying to correct its obvious and terrible defects by rewriting reality here on this forum).
And don't bother to dispute this. it is obvious, and I'm just having fun anyway.
There is soooo little difference in acceleration that it is almost embarrassing since it is a V6 at 40hp more at only 170 pounds heavier. I have a 2001 model CRV that I absolutely love to death and I know it is not a bomb and it doesn't tow 3500 pounds but I don't care cause I don't use it for that. It works all the time and is even quieter than the Escape. The new model is even more quiet so that must prove something.
I've tried the new CRV many times and have found the engine really great and very efficient and smooth. I was not expecting it to be that good as I was also one of those that wanted to see a V6 in there BUT I realized that most Honda 4's are as good and maybe better than a lot of V6's on the market. Also I believe Honda does not want to have 2 models with 2 V6's (CRV and Pilot) to compete together as this would not make sense for those on a budget or when miles per gallon is an issue.
Scape, we know you love your vehicle and that is great.....so do we. That is what counts the most.
FWIW, C&D got the CR-V to 60 in 8.4 seconds. Once again, this is faster than the Escape. However, it should be pointed out that they used a 5 speed.
Just to rehash it once more. The 5 speed CR-V seems to accelerate as fast as the Escape. The automatic is probably slower by half a second. Not much given the hp/torque difference. Makes you wonder what Honda could do with 200hp...
And BTW, Scape read Golden's post again. He specifically wrote, NOT C&D.
Scape2 - It's okay to link to other articles, as Steve mentioned. However, please have a point when you do so. I posted information regarding a specific point (the smoothness of the i-VTEC 2.4) and I provided the links so you could see the source (and give proper credit). If you're just going to provide a bunch of links with no point, don't bother. I've probably already read them.
Warren19 - HP is measured at the flywheel. They take the amount of torque generated and calculate HP. Much of that power is lost in the transmission. Especially with automatic trannies. A dyno test is the best measure. This rates the power "at the wheels". I haven't found any of those yet.
I suggested, way back at the beginning of this thread, that the Escape may have a less efficient tranny. The Escape fans who were hear at the time wouldn't hear of it. That leaves us with only gearing, tire size, weight, and aerodynamics to help explain why the Escape is so slow (comparatively).
Now this would be interesting just to see by how many car lenghths the CRV would beat the Escape then! If the CRV is only a half second behind the "big" V6 then what would an extra 40 vtec horsepower do???
They could even drop the 2.0 from the S2000 and still only generate 150lb-ft of torque.
The 2.4 is adequate (if not more), despite what the Ford people say. Honda could probably tweak this engine for more hp, but I think 160 is the best that they can do with torque.
The current CR-V engine is more effiecient with torque (and has more for that matter) which makes it their best choice right now.
Since we're down this road, I for one would like to see Ford plop the 3.0 Duratec (231 HP) from the Jaguar X-Type in the Escape. Maybe call it the Escape OMY (Outta My Way) or something to that effect.
I believe the S2000 engine spins in the wrong direction. I agree that the RSX-S 2.0 doesn't have enough torque for this application, but it does have a flat torque curve. It revs a bit high, but nothing like the older engines.
Regardless, they wouldn't have to do a complete engine transplant. The RSX-S uses a variaton of i-VTEC. As mentioned earlier the CR-V's engine uses variable valve timing on the INTAKE valves. So does the base RSX. What makes the RSX-S special is the use of variable valve timing on both the INTAKE and EXHAUST valves. That, and a few minor tweaks, is responsible for the 40hp difference between the base RSX and the RSX-S.
It wouldn't be hard for Honda to modify the exhaust valves for the CR-V. And with 2.4L in operation, it wouldn't need to be a high revving plant. I can easily see them getting slightly more torque and significantly more hp that way.
As a custom mod, many Integra owners took the old CR-V's 2.0 and bolted on the GSR's head and valves. They call it, "Frankenstein", and I'm told it works wonders.
Psych 101 doesn't work with me hondaman, or goldencouple.. I know I chose the superior vehicle, the Escape. Just keep justifying and believing the articles you want to believe and convincing yourselves the 2.4 in the CRV is more powerful than the 3.0 V6 found in the Escape. I sure wish Edmunds would do a realworld faceoff with the VUE, CRV, Escape/Trib, Liberty. I mean load them up and take them up some steep hills, passing, merging ect..
I drove a 5spd 2002 CRV and you have to absolutley rap the engine out, I mean redline it through every gear in order to achieve what the automatic in the Escape does, this Motor Trend won't tell you. The 5spd I would believe could match the Escape in 0-60, the automatic CRV looses by a wide margin however. Now, lets load both vehicles down with 4 adults and gear and lets see who wins?
No the A/C does not switch off/on in the V6 Escape. It never has to beg for power, there is plenty.
A supercharged Mustang with 350 HP will eat your RSX for lunch Hondaboy.. Better yet a Lightning.. or A Camaro SS, or a Corvette, or a Firebird Transam with a 6spd LS1, or the new GTO with 400HP!!.. GO USA!!
every 10 years,spark plugs at 110000 miles,and transmission fluid at 120000 miles.My average of
6000 a year means my CRV will outlive me.
Ronbon - You can check the Edmunds.com TCO which includes a maintenance estimate, but, since we don't have a clear methodology, it's open to debate. Tomsr is correct about the belt.
From what I read, it seems as if the argument is rather that the 2.4 *performs* as well as the 3.0.
Neither vehicle is 'far superior' than the other.
Depending on the individuals wants and needs, the 'right' vehicle for that person might CRV, just as the 'right' vehicle for others is the Escape.. This is not Psych 101, just common sense.
ronbon:
I agree in principle, but there are no clear statistics to indicate an advantage either way..As varmit indicated, a few sites indicate that 'general maintenance' costs are less for the CRV, but it's not clear what was measured or how this was determined.
tomsr:
I don't own a Honda, 10k interval for oil changes seems rather long.. What type of oil do they call for? How often do you change your oil? fyi, Ford calls for 5k intervals using just normal 5w-20..(or 5w-30 for my SuperDuty). I usually change it somewhere between 3500 and 4500 mile intervals.
Now I get it...
I have one question for you however....Why is it so important that you beat a CRV 0-60?? Did you buy your SUV for that reason only? I bought mine because it was listed as the one with the least amount of problems, highest customer satisfaction,low fuel consumption, comfort, quality, traction in snow ect.. I have never said at anytime that speed was an issue in any of my posts. I find it amusing how much you defend your car which is great and that makes you loyal but I have a hard time believeing that every single automotive magazine is wrong by saying that the advantage Honda (and Toyota) has over domestics is quality! I need proof here that they are wrong...can you give that to me?
I don't believe that Honda's are any better than any other make from personal experience. That is why we keep having these discussions, because I'm not the only one.
We've all said it once now: Choose what suits you the best. I know I made the right choice, and it seems everyone else believe the same of their choices.
I typed that real fast so correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll defend myself later if need be.
Varmit and Diploid - I too am tired of scape2's annoying habit of making up claims and then disputing them (i.e. power arguments and the Honda is perfect argument). Building straw houses and then knocking them down is getting very old. It ruins your credibility.
There are two types of safety; active and passive. Active safety would be the vehicle's ability to avoid accidents. Passive safety is the vehicle's ability to protect the occupants in a crash.
Both are important. Which is more important is a matter of personal opinion. Personally, I put more emphasis on passive safety, since it is effective regardless of the driver's abilities or even who is at fault. Active safety requires that the driver have some skill or, at the least, be paying attention. YMMV.
In terms of active safety, I have to give the edge to the Escape. Both vehicles handle well enough. That's important in avoiding a crash. When pushed to their limits, both exhibit understeer, rather than oversteer. Of the two possibilities, understeer is generally considered the more easy to control. Both vehicles also have AWD systems. Staying on the road is important and these systems can help prevent or restore traction when driving in sleepery conditions. I give the Escape the nod in this area for one reason; brakes. The Escape has some impressive braking ability. That can be a major benefit in preventing an accident.
There isn't enough data to make a decision on the passive side of the safety issue. However, the data we have points toward the CR-V being the better of the two. Both vehicles come equipped with (or have the option for) front and side airbags. Both have available ABS and pretensioned seat belts. So far, only the NHTSA has ranked both vehicles. In these tests, both vehicles do reasonable well. Though the CR-V outscores the Escape by one "star" for the passenger frontal impact. It's worth noting that the CR-V scores five stars in the side impact test, both with and without side airbags. The Escape has only been tested with this equipment. We don't know how it will fare without them. Both vehicles earn three stars in the rollover index.
There is one particular difference in the equipment on these vehicles. The CR-V uses Honda's latest seatbelt design. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda uses dual pretensioners. Most pretensioned belts will cinch the shoulder strap when the vehicle is in an accident. This helps to prevent the occupant from bouncing around in the cabin, hitting the B pillar or ceiling, or slipping out of the vehicle. With the dual pretensioned belts, both the shoulder and the lap belt are pretentioned. The IIHS gives this design credit for the Civic's top scores in their crash test.
Speaking of the IIHS... The Escape earned a "Marginal" rating in the off-set crash (FYI, so did the old CR-V). The new CR-V has not yet been tested by the IIHS. We can't officially compare the two using this test. However, Honda does their own crash testing (like other manufacturers) and has predicted that the CR-V will earn a rating of "Good" in the IIHS test. That's the top rating for the IIHS off-set crash.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Just because Honda says so, doesn't make it the gospel truth. I agree. But, so far, Honda has accurately predicted the crash test rating for every vehicle they have released since '99. When the Ody was introduced, they predicted top frontal and side crash test results. The Ody got them. When the new Civic was introduced, Honda predicted top scores in all crash tests. The Civic got them. When the MDX was introduced, Honda predicted top scores in all crash tests. So far, the MDX has gotten them. Bottom line, I see no reason to doubt Honda's claims.
How is it that Honda can make these claims? They own the world's largest and arguably most sophisticated indoor crash testing facility. This allows them to test cars all year round regardless of the weather. The facility has enough space for eight separate tracks and is capable of conducting both vehicle vs vehicle and vehicle vs barrier crashes.
I also agree that each person buys what they love and I am not disputing that but what I am disputing is the same as the others (altoon, varmit diploid etc...) and am growing tired of scape2 as well. The idea of having all this data and just having the energy and will to want to change everybodies mind to his liking is not the opinion of the majority here. What is important is to have a constructive argument without going overboard. After all, it is only a piece of metal but when it becoames part of your personality, there is a problem.
They both have there qualities and faults BUT those are usually decided by the owner. For example I will admit that Honda has made 2 big boo-boo's recently, One being the withdrawl of the hatchback (recent return SiR) and the new Civic's Suspension changes from double wishbones to McPherson's. These were bad judgment calls that cost them. All automakers have there qualities. Honda and Ford are in racing. Honda is the biggest engine maker in the world. Ford sells the most pick-ups in the world etc....
My point is that data, insults and being told what to think and buy is wrong and that is not what you should be doing scape2