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
Front brakes wear faster than rear brakes on virtually every car. Why? Because the front does most of the braking.
" Don't forget, the Engine and trans sit over the front wheels of the Escape and are heavy, causing more front brake wear.. "
LMAO........That's a new one.
" use the new ceramic brake pads for the front "
I second that......
" My price for rotors, pads was about 180 "
$180 for complete rotors & pads? I hope you're talking just parts. If not, your credibility is sinking even more.
They are partners, they cooperate with each other re technology and manufacturing, but I don't think Ford can order Mazda to do much of anything.
http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=15147
Instead of arguing I'll share my observation regarding consumers' thrust in the Honda/Ford products, subsequent demand and so on. Since I bought my SE in June this year, I just kept checking out the local paper's Cars Section - wanted to see if I went wrong not waiting for a sale, clearance, blow out, close out etc. dealer sponsored circus. Well, to this day, not one add for CR-V! A few leases on Accords, Civics, Ridgeline promotion and a 2.9% financing once. On the other hand, Fords are prominently displayed: pictures, 06 Escapes on the first page last time I looked, rebates, available equipment listed in detail, hot dogs during tent events....
We could go on with the resale value of the respective vehicles, but that's another sad Ford story.
Read the second paragraph. You'll find the same info in a thousand other places too.
Ford owns a 33.4% stake in Mazda which, by law in Japan, is a CONTROLLING stake. Therefore Ford makes the rules. Period.
Fuel-Conscious Buyers Cause SUV Sales to Plummet in September (Inside Line)
Honda CR-V sales were also down; the big numbers from Honda seem to be from the cars, especially the new Civic.
I didn't keep track of the links last night while I was browsing around. Business Week had the Honda story. Hopefully someone will run across actual numbers - I think most of the sites were waiting on Saab or another manufacturer or two to report before writing the sales stories.
As far as Ford telling Mazda what to do, the general consensus is that Ford owns a controlling interest in Mazda (link).
Steve, Host
LOL, just kidding of course. Every point made by sky23213 is true here in the deep south, too.
And to correct a scape2 statement, earlier, the escape has a rough 40 horsepower advantage, not 60. The CR-V has an advantage in interior space, (72ft for the Honda, 69 for the Ford. Honda has 3 inches more legroom /front rear combined.
The iVTEC also delivers peak torque at 3600 rpm, vs. 4800 rpm for the Escape, and it has one more gear, meaning that along with the constantly changing cam specs, it can match up the engine to superior gearing as well. 4800 rpm just isn't a realistic level for your average driver, meaning to the average driver, the Escape and the CR-V have approximately equal real-world torque figures. Nevermind the CR-V is faster in 0-60 times.
Therefore, it's rather ignorant IMO to throw out peak power figures without taking into account the hardware that goes along with those numbers.
BTW, I'd LOVE to see a picture of an Escape with three adults in the back seat. The CR-V is bigger inside, and I know my passengers wouldn't be comfortable sitting three abreast, which means the Escape would be even more uncomfortable.
PS - scape2, I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why Ford doesn't put their Mazda V6 into the Explorer, F-150 and Freestar.
So why didn't Honda put a V6 in the CR-V???
1) It doesn't need it. It already out accelerates the V6 Escape.
2) It would infringe on the market of the Pilot.
3) It would cost more.
4) Decreased fuel economy. Honda's engineers prize efficiency. It's engrained in them.
5) It wouldn't be as safe, as it would consume more room under the hood and reduce crumple zones.
6) Evidently, Honda marketing has shown they don't need it to sell, since Honda is increasing sales, and Ford is losing sales.
Conversely, why doesn't Honda put the 2.4L iVTEC in the Ridgeline, Pilot and Odyssey?
1) Marketing has obviously shown people in those segments don't want a four cylinder.
That's probably the only reason. Other automakers stick four cylinders in their minivans and compact pickups. However, their sales are abysmal. Just look at Escape four cylinder sales. Look at Explorer or F-150 V6 sales. They suck. Besides the fact that Ford doesn't make very good engines, other than some of their V8s, the consumer doesn't want the smaller engines.
If they're buying foreign, they probably prize the superior engineering that goes into those vehicles, which allows for smaller displacement, improved economy, better reliability, and more power, all in the same package. It's a no-brainer really.
So now, scape2, it's your turn. Please tell me why the Escape V6 isn't in the F-150, Freestar, or Explorer, since they have V6s as well??? I'm waiting...
it has that not too practical side swinging rear hatch. outside spare tire (went out in the early 90's), no rear bumper. 1, 2, 3 stikes and you're out. the crv has a lot of good attributes, but too many warts, for a lot of buyers.
The only thing that took some getting used to for me on the CR-V was the dashboard mounted gear shifter. The biggest thing I learned about Honda, though, is they do EVERYTHING for a reason. For instance, that rear-mounted spare tire you don't like gives it more interior room, the thing that probably drew me to the CR-V the most.
The rugged rear exterior of the Jeep's with the full size spare on the rear has been around for a while, and other makes have taken this on. I like the position of it on the Honda, as I have had to change a flat tire, and it was easy for me to use the wheel locks, take the spare off, change tire and put the flat back on the rear door. I also like the way the rear door opens, it makes sense for U.S. drivers to exit the vehicle, and have easy access to the cargo area in the back, even if the garage door is pulled down. I rarely park on a city street, so no issue with curbs there.
Back to the main comparo...FORD vs HONDA
con·trol·ling interest (kən-trō'lĭng) n., Ownership of a sufficient number of shares of stock in a company to control company policy.
Gas is $2.91 here in Boise and I had to fill the van today. First time I've paid over $50 to fill up. It only gets around 20 mpg in town; filling up a Suburban for grocery runs would really bug me.
Steve, Host
Of course I'm kidding.
The Escape and the CR-V are no exception. Neither one has a real bumper. However, the CR-V's rear tire probably acts like a bumper before you actually get to the real one, so if safety from behind is your concern, you probably go with CR-V in this instance as well, in addition to ever other scenario I can think of.
CR-V
Escape
Steve, Host
Looks like Steve's links are all we get from the IIHS now regarding bumper tests. However, I do remember the video of the CR-V test showing the rear hatch glass blowing out immediately after the spare started to bend (all other small SUVs with the external spare did the same thing FWIW). I think that's what scape2 was trying to convey.
Fortunately the Escape does not suffer from window blowout, and with the addition of factory installed, as an option of course, reverse sensors it's even less likely you'll damage the rear bumper. We have the sensors and they have made my wife a somewhat improved driver. :P
However, the CR-V's rear tire probably acts like a bumper before you actually get to the real one, so if safety from behind is your concern, you probably go with CR-V in this instance as well
The mini spare in the 2001-2004 Escape were under the cargo floor inside the vehicle (where your picnic table is) and acted as a structural crash member. I'd rather have that than a loose tire and long steel bar (like the Liberty has) that have the potential to reach the rear passengers in the event of a collision. The Escape's spare for 2005 and on (I have a full size spare from the factory but I guess a mini is still standard on some trims) is under the vehicle tucked up below the cargo floor. The space that used to house it is reshaped (to be smaller and wider for the Hybrid battery pack) and either filled with a huge piece of styrofoam or a storage bin with a rigid hinged top that also serves as the cargo floor. I'm not sure that the spare still acts as a structural member in this configuration but it does seem to be high enough to do so.
Check the latest Motor Trend Honda fans.. Looks like Honda was caught cheating with the HP ratings.. Actually Honda/Toyota and Nissan were caught cheating.. For instance the Toyota 3.3 lost 15HP.. More to come I'm sure...
Get out on the net CRV troopers.. Your Combustable Recreational Vehicle.. Is still being questioned in other chat rooms.. As much as Honda wants this to die and go away, its not... I love the internet!!...
New Horsepower Ratings to Level the Field in Performance (Inside Line)
And the Detroit News somewhat gleeful take on it:
Asians oversell horsepower
Honda is putting this blurb on their press releases:
*For the 2006 model year, all Honda horsepower and torque specifications have been updated to reflect revised Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1349 (Rev 8/04) net calculations that went into affect in January of 2005. These new calculations reflect a number of significant changes in the way horsepower and torque are measured and may cause SAE net horsepower and torque totals published in 2006 media materials to differ from the figures published in previous years. To avoid confusion, all 2006 Honda press materials will specify "SAE net (Rev 8/04") after all horsepower and torque figures to denote adherence to the new standards." link
Steve, Host
Latest example; Ford and GM putting all their eggs in the SUV and Truck basket and having nothing in the pipelines to deal with the consumers shift towards more fuel efficient vehicles. Just like the 1970's the domestics are being caught unprepared for a changing market.
I guess history does repeat itself.
Think about it... When was the last time you go hit by something with a pole-shaped front end? Or something with a 5 foot wall strapped onto the front of it?
I've been rear-ended twice in my CR-V. Both times the cost of the damage was covered by the other guy. It cost me nothing. And neither time resulted in any damage to the door or the glass. (I did get a scratch on my spare tire cover). In both cases, the offending vehicle struck my CR-V low on the back end. The most expensive fit was to replace the muffler system.
My first accident, about a month after I got my license, was me hitting an 8 foot chain link fence gate post at about 40 MPH. I was going to fast for the gravel and road salt covered hairpin turn in an air-bagless '87 Taurus and I wouldn't be typing this if it weren't for seat belts.
My second accident, and last one to date knock wood, involved my '91 Escort and a cement stone retaining wall. The wall was about 3 feet high and about 30 feet long. I hit it with the corner of the passenger side bumper and signal light. The light broke and needed replaced, the corner of the bumper was punctured and a hole about an inch in diameter was there until my dad traded it in. Slid on black ice going around a steep downhill hairpin turn on that one.
Both were my fault and you might have noticed that I hit the two things they use in those tests. The former was a much different crash though.
I will say, as I've said before, I've never hit a parked aluminum finned block with the driver's half of the front of a vehicle before though. I've also never had one run into the side of me while parked either. :P
Well...I've answered that question on a number of occasions, so I'd like for him to quit dodging the question and tell me why Ford doesn't put the 3.0 in the Freestar, F150 or Explorer, if it's so powerful.
:P
Yes it would be unusual but I neither said that that scenario happened to me nor that it could happen to anyone. Varmint asked for examples of someone hitting a pole or a flat wall and I gave them. And I do realize that my experiences don't exactly match apples to apples.
varmint,
You've stated that both times you've been rear ended the glass hatch stayed intact. The tests we are referring to are for the '02 CR-V and on which have a different rear end and hatch/door combo. Your pre-2002 model doesn't fit the bill and really isn't a good example for the discussion of the most recent test.
Don't get me wrong, I value your opinion and all but you need to get a new car man!
It's gotta have a V6! Pu-leaze. Just because the 2.3l in the Escape is a dog, doesn't mean the 2.4 in the CRV is by default, because it is far from it IMO. And it also doesn't mean that a V6 is superior because it's got 2 more cylinders either.
Remember, no replacement for displacment, it's the American way baby!
Actually, they use a version of the Duratec 3.0 in the Freestyle, which is a pretty large vehicle.
What you don't get is there is an advantage with the v6 in the Escape. Why is it Toyota is coming out with one? Suzuki? Hyundia? Jeep? VUE? Equinox? If there we no advantage then why? In your mind the 2.4 is every bit as powerful as the 3.0 in the Escape. This tells me you have never driven a vehicle that could use more power when loaded down. There is a difference. To totally dismiss the HP/Torque advante of the Escape is ignorant. Gearing does make up some, but not all. As far as the 0-60 stint, this is a 5spd CRV that you have to redline through the gears in order to achieve these 0-60 numbers. You keep claiming Honda's 4cyl engines blow the doors off everything under the sun.. not me. Fact is V6's have an advantage. I have take a CRV up a 7% grade with 5 adults inside along with some gear, then took an Escape to do the same. There is a difference in the confidence of how the vehicle feels. The 40HP and 40ft/lbs of torque can be felt..
Now, some say the 2.4 is "silky smooth", yet the 2.3 is a rattle can, gasping piece of junk. Go drive one. I did. the 2.4 gets awfully buzzy and loud when pushed. Some would call this "silky smooth", no-way, no how. The 2.3 sounds the same when pushed. Its all in your bias minds about what you want so badly to hear. Ford is putting a revised 2.3 in the new Fusion/Zepher. I don't doubt this will make it into the Escape/Tribute. Mazda already puts it in the 6 and the 3. The HP/Torque ratings for this engine, is 160/160. I guess the change is VVTi.. What then for the CRV?
1) NOBODY here believes you got five adults in a CR-V, much less an Escape, which is smaller. It's not realistic, unless you are talking about VERY small people or a VERY short trip...
2) Since when does it matter how you got a 0-60 time? The CR-V is faster than the Escape. Period. You choose to apply standards when and how it suits you, but that's not how it works. If you take the best equipped CR-V and the best equipped Escape, the CR-V has a better 0-60 time. Mind you, I don't care. That's not why I bought a cute-ute, to see how fast it goes, since I've never done that with any vehicle, but this appears to be an important standard to you, and since it is, the CR-V is superior.
3) Nobody here is claiming the Escape doesn't have peak HP and torque advantages...however, who cares about peaks anyway? It's about how vehicles perform in every day driving that matters to 99% of us. I'd love to talk to the Escape owner who always has their vehicle screaming at 4800 rpm to achieve that torque figure. Besides, since most cute-ute owners don't ever tow maximum loads, it doesn't matter what the tow rating is on a vehicle this small. If you do, you bought the wrong vehicle anyway. Go buy a pickup or a bigger utility vehicle that's made to do that. At least buy a Liberty, since any other vehicle in this class isn't built to be abused, but to provide all-weather performance on-road, with the possibility of occasional off-roading.
4) Since we are talking about advantages here, why is it so easy to dismiss the CR-V's FAR superior gas mileage? We may not tow every day (to date, between these two vehicles, I've only seen ONE Escape towing, and that was a lawnmower on a trailer...), but we do consume gas whenever we drive. The average Escape owner gets 20 mpg, if they're lucky, the average CR-V owner get at least 23-25. THAT matters.
5) Again, we are comparing a Honda four cylinder with a Ford six cylinder. That says something in itself. The Ford 2.3 got the slowest 0-60 time of the YEAR for C & D recently, at 13+ seconds. Again, I'm not a drag racer, but that's ridiculous. It also proves there's more to comparing vehicles than throwing their MAX horsepower and torque figures, since almost no one will ever achieve them. And since the Honda four cylinder has been called the most technologically advanced mass-produced four cylinder in the world, those of us who get to drive them every day know why.
PS - You still haven't explained why I can't find a Duratec 3.0 in a F150, Freestar or Explorer, if it is such a powerful powerplant...
2)It does matter how 0-60 times were taken. A 5spd manual gear box allows you to redline an engine and shift faster than an Automatic. I guess you don't know I have access to CRV's through a manager of a Honda dealership. Be careful of what you claim. I have driven both the automatic and 5spd version of the CRV. I have been able to put the CRV through "real world" comparisons of my own. To completly dismiss the 40HP and 40ft/lbs of torque advantage is ignorant.
3) When does the CRV reach its "Peek" HP/Torque rating and when does the Escape? Gee, how much more does the Escape have to give you before it reaches its "PEEK'?? Then why didn't you just buy a mini-van? or a station wagon instead of a CRV?
4) Far superior MPG? 2-3MPG is far superior?? You downplay the average of the Escape into your favor claiming "average Escape owners get 20MPG" How do you know this? I have averaged 23 on Hwy trips and 20 around town. If you look in the CRV room right here at Edmunds there are CRV owners complaing about MPG and are not getting 23-25 you claim. Kind of funny how you know all these averages yet have no data to back your claim.
5)In one paragraph you claim 0-60 numbers don't matter in these "cute utes". In this one you bring it up. Which is it? I notice you don't bring up MPG figures when you compare the 2.3 vs the 2.4? Why? Because there isn't any maybe? You make another statement " And since the Honda four cylinder has been called the most technologically advanced mass-produced four cylinder" Where does it say this? Show me where? This is your OPINION
You still have not explained why the HP in the CRV has dropped to 156? or why Honda puts a V6 in the Accord? or why Honda puts a V6 in the Oddessy? if thier 4cyl engines are so advanced?? You even say yourself "And since the Honda four cylinder has been called the most technologically advanced mass-produced four cylinder"
The Escape is more of an SUV than the CRV just admit it.. You just don't understand what HP/Torque really are and how they are an advantage. You should have bought a station waggon, does the same thing the CRV does....
How many seat belts are in the back seat should be the test. I understand there's three belts in the CR-V's back seat. Passenger size would be an issue, but three slim people could certainly fit in there.
Steve, Host
That, plus driver and 2 others in the front makes 7 total ... hmm!
tidester, host