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
I carry 5 adults in my CR-V as well. It has both headrests and a shoulder belt for the center rear passenger.
I cannot speak to what chat rooms or other CR-V owners get. I get 21-22 MPG in town and 26-27 on the highway (~80 mph). My best ever MPG was over 30 MPG at 60-65 MPH. 2003 CR-V EX, 37K miles. BTW, that is 7 oil changes so far, no smoke in sight...
The CR-V can do everything in your "list", providing those 2 watercraft do not weigh more than 1500 lbs. Or, the 'V should be able tow 3000 lbs if the trailer has brakes. However, I doubt if anyone will do this; people don't buy CR-Vs for towing.
I might even get more stuff in my CR-V with those 5 people loaded than you could with the Escape, if I moved the rear seat forward (thus making my rear legroom decrease to the same legroom as the Escape). With the seats forward, it has around 40 Cu feet behind the rear seat. But then, the CR-V is larger than the Escape as well.
Sometimes I wonder why they would be in comparisons; the CR-V is mid-size and the Escape is compact sized, per EPA measurements.
Pardon the long post, I'm just trying to clear up some apparent lack of accurate knowledge about the CR-V.
Anyway, the main reason I like the CR-V over the Escape (which is a fine small SUV) is the handling. The CR-V is exceptionally easy to drive in the city, and parks very well. It has the shortest turning radius of any car I've owned.
Both of these vehicles have changed since 2002. Some of the changes have benefited performance. For example, the CR-V got bigger brakes and slightly larger tires with +1 rims. Some changes have not. Both vehicles have gained weight and Ford lowered the V6's output.
What we have seen consistently is that most every recent test for the Escape shows the 0-60 times getting lower and braking distances getting longer. So whatever Ford has done to improve on the Escape's performance, it does not appear to be enough to compensate for the negative changes.
To use someone's favorite term, "it's all over the 'net" and even right here on Edmunds how people do get a "deal" on their Honda (although I suppose the term is relative). And I'm pretty sure some of those people are in the Pacific Northwest.
So even if the Honda dealers don't "deal" in the Pacific Northwest (not true of course), sales figures being what they are, there must be something drawing people to that "little silver H".
FWIW, in my market, '06 CR-V EX AT, $21400. Feel free to post a figure for a COMPARABLY EQUIPPED Escape (hint: you can't because they can't).
:P
BTW, I'm still waiting for those "comparison" specifics to which scape keeps referring. Specifically, what were the mileage figures on the respective vehicles??? I'm going to guess he'll completely ignore my question, like always, pose the same question he always does (if the CR-V engine is so great, why don't they have it in all of their vehicles?), then end it with another "Combustible" vehicle comment in a few days.
Nuh uh!
Ok, maybe, but can he outrun another small SUV?
The difference wasn't large though right? I just don't trust CR's tests at all. Too many factors play into those numbers especially the driver. All of the other reputable, YMMV on that last word, mags use professional drivers with racing experience for their tests. Who does CR use? The fridge guy or the toaster guy? :P
But honestly, if you really want to compare the numbers the best way to do that is to use those from a test that pitted the two against each other. That way you know the driver was the same, the track was the same, the weather was the same, etc.
I too used to think all ratings were created equal until I started reasearching them a little more. One perfect example of how "off" the numbers can be is with the Mazda6 V6 MTX. MT lists a 0-60 time of 6.9 seconds while Edmunds lists it at 7.5 seconds. That's a pretty big difference for the same car don't you think? Out of curiosity, what's CR's time?
Here's another example:
From Edmunds' test of the 2003 Accord:
There was little of the high-end rush we've come to expect from Honda's VTEC variable valve timing equipped engines. Upshifts from the five-speed automatic were consistently crisp, and the overall sensation was one of highly refined and wholly adequate performance. Then we checked the numbers and saw that it was doing zero to 60 mph in seven seconds flat.
For comparison's sake we brought along our long-term Nissan Altima SE, equipped with that model's 240-horsepower 3.5-liter V6 and a four-speed automatic, and ran it only moments after testing the Accord (meaning essentially identical testing conditions). While the Nissan felt far quicker than the Honda Accord due to increased engine roar and vibration, we could only manage a 6.8-second 0-to-60-mph time. It would appear that, while the new Accord isn't setting the performance pace in the midsize sedan category, it's certainly keeping up with the front-runners.
Note that they go out of their way to mention that testing conditions were the same. Now if you look at the 0-60 times from another place you'll find they are much different. MT has the '03 Accord V6 doing 60 in 6.6 seconds. I'm betting the Altima guys and gals like to compare MT's 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds for the Altima V6 to the Edmunds time more often than not.
I'm glad you mentioned the CR-V's increase in wheel size because I've been meaning to ask about those. Have there been any measurable performance gains/losses due to them that we know of? I'm guessing handling improved slightly but acceleration was lost.
This is very true, but more things than conditions of the road and weather come into play here. Motor trend uses whatever launch technique will give them the best possible numbers during a test. This can mean a slipped clutch launch or power braking an automatic to 5000RPMs and then releasing the brake. Consumer Reports uses the method of "floor it and go". Which is more reliable? Well, no one can really play sides. On the one hand, Motor Trend is much more likely to achieve the best possible numbers, while CR will achieve the results that 99% of the world can achieve, not requiring tricky launch methods or deactivating traction control devices.
I realize that this "helps" neither side of the argument, it just brings a little more info to the table, regarding driving methods and how important they are.
Someone the other day argued that if we're going to compare 0-60 times then we should use the best time from each model. That means we'd have to use the MTX CR-V and the ATX V6 Escape. However, if we're concerned about the real world then the former has to be disqualified because there are about as many of them on the road as there are people who power brake or slip clutches.
On a side note, I don't find slipping the clutch to be something out of the ordinary. That is one of the great benefits of having an MTX IMO, and I can honestly say I do it all the time. It makes taking the back roads home from work all the more fun! :shades:
Furthermore, the speed limits are all 75 mph and lower, meaning anything much above that speed is unnecessary. I think that's one of the reasons I defected from Ford to Honda. Honda is all about efficiency. What does it take to get the job done. No more, no less. Ford, on the other hand, can't seem to get more than a couple vehicles in a decade right. Most of the cars they make are underpowered. Most, if not all of those get terrible gas mileage. The ones that aren't underpowered get terrible gas mileage. Of the Big 3, only GM seems dedicated to getting decent mileage, at least in part of their vehicle lines.
Honda and Toyota, meanwhile, seem to be able to get more efficiency, often times with more power (CR-V vs. the Escape is one of the few exceptions), with more safety features and greater reliability. The biggest drawback to buying these cars is whether their used or new, you won't find them dirt cheap. Then again, you get what you pay for, and when you do the math, they're cheaper in the long run, or back to the CR-V vs. the Escape, they're cheaper in the short run, too. I just don't understand how a country as great as ours, so infactuated with personal transportation, has trouble making quality vehicles.
You are getting 2-3mpg better than even Honda claims?? This is stretching the truth in my book... 80mph and 27mpg! LOL!
"The CR-V can do everything in your "list", providing those 2 watercraft do not weigh more than 1500 lbs. Or, the 'V should be able tow 3000 lbs if the trailer has brakes. However, I doubt if anyone will do this; people don't buy CR-Vs for towing."
CRV CANNOT do everything an Escape can do.. Cannot tow 3,500lbs...
One thing I do have to say.. I am disappointed in Ford for not coming out with a newly redesigned Escape/Tribute/Mariner. I have searched and searched the net for anybit of news maybe indicating Ford will meet the competition head on in this segment. With the new RAV4 coming online soon with its outstanding V6.. at least I have the sense to say.. Ford will slip even further behind its competition.
The Escape can be the most reliable vehicle.. but without improvements I admit it will look like an old dog soon..
Are you listening Ford??? :mad:
Because the root cause was traced to defective oil filter gaskets.
" or other Honda vehicles that use this engine?"
defective oil filter gaskets
"It is a design flaw."
Wrong again, it was defective oil filter gaskets.
Did I say the root cause was defective oil filter gaskets? Get it now? :confuse:
Just for reference, the EPA on a 2005 CR-V: Automatic: : 22 mpg / 27 mpg
However, I will admit I only got 26 MPG on this last trip, but we had a lot of rain and some off road. But yes, I do get 26+ MPG at 80 MPH.
You might want to read this post, with similar MPG as mine:
saabgirl, "Honda CR-V Owners: MPG-Real World Numbers" #66, 20 Oct 2005 4:12 pm
BTW, my best ever is just under 31MPG, but that was at around 60 MPH, and high altitudes.
My engine is only 2.4L, remember?
"CRV CANNOT do everything an Escape can do.. Cannot tow 3,500lbs..."
I never said it could tow 3500 lbs. Your original post said nothing about 3500 lbs; it said something about 2 watercraft... I think my response was accurate to the original post.
:P
Also, I completely agree with stevedebi, nothing I've seen or read leads me to believe a CR-V can't do anything his Escape does. Personal watercraft aren't that heavy, and living in Minnesota, we have LOTS of fishing spots, and I'm not aware of any that an Escape could reach, but a CR-V couldn't.
:confuse:
I feel similarly about the Ranger. For years growing up I wanted I Ranger pickup when I turned 16, but as it turns out, no significant updates have happened since I was much younger. It's sad, but true. C'mon Ford, we want greatness from you!
When paying nearly $3 a gallon, two extra miles per three dollars goes a lot longer than you might think. I fill up and add roughly ten gallons every time I do so (I fill it full, it just happens to be around ten when I dont like the gas gauge position anymore). If for every thirty dollars I get 240 miles instead of 220, then I get an extra 20 miles per thirty dollars. If I do this twelve times, then I've just paid for every thirteenth tank of gas that I buy. Saving me thirty dollars every few thousand miles. Whatdya know, with a little extra mileage, you can pay for your car to be serviced by driving one that is more fuel efficient! If you make it the 3-5 mpg difference between the CR-V and Escape, you get the proverbial "free" tank of gas more often.
maybe it was all decals on the 'ele weighing it down.
PS - How did you get an Element and a CR-V confused with one another???
PPS - I'm still waiting on the mileages of those two vehicles you tested...
Nope, sorry; I can't fit in the back seat of the Escape; I can in the Element though! The Escape is definitely the better vehicle when it comes to off-roading. IMO, it sort-of splits the difference between the off-roader Liberty and soft-roader CR-V. The CR-V just suited our needs best, with a larger back seat and cargo area and better gas mileage. The only off-roading was parking in the grass at football games, LOL! Each vehicle should suit each person, i.e. reason for purchase! Congrats on the off-roading, man (or woman,I dont honestly know yet; I dont want to offend!
What I said is all still true, just not a really relevant reply. Sorry for the confusion!
What you said is true too, and it should be. A V-6 should outrun a loaded I-4 due to the torque advantage. I just feel bad for the guy that thinks his Element is a road-racer, because it isn't!
Thanks for your suggestion; as it happens I have taken an Escape on the exact same roads I have used in my CR-V, under similar conditions, and I do not notice any difference. Have you driven the CR-V under the same circumstance as your Escape, so that you speak from experience when you compare the pickup between the two? BTW, if you happen to do this, please also post the MPG achived for both vehicles.
FYI, you might want to post this under "Element vs. Escape", but before you do, you should realize that the CR-V and Element share the same basic engine, but the CR-V engine is tuned differently, and geared differently. The Element and the Accord I4 have the same engine characteristics. For that matter the same engine model (but again tuned differently) puts out around 200 HP in some Acura implementations.
Prior to 2005, the CR-V was a 4 speed (as is my 2003 model), but even then it had more useful power than the Element. The Element was one of the vehicles I cross shopped when I bought my CR-V, and there is a definite difference in the two vehicles.
1. Almost all pickups have trailer hitches. (duh)
2. A lot of mid to full-size SUVs have trailer hitches.
3. In general, Mini Coopers do not have trailer hitches.
4. Hardly any mini SUVs have trailer hitches. This includes 3 Escapes,
2 Hyundai Santa Fes, and 3 CRVs that I personally know of, in
addition to the ones I saw on the road.
Now why is it that the CRV and Escape class of SUVs hardly ever have a hitch? Probably because most people who buy a vehicle like a CRV or Escape aren’t buying them for their towing capabilities since they can’t tow anything substantial (a couple of jet-skis on a trailer doesn’t count).
So IMHO, towing capability in this class doesn’t mean much because, as far as I can tell, hardly anyone tows anything. Now, if towing is eliminated from the mix that must mean that there is no apparent reason for the mini SUV class to exist since station wagons and minivans can do everything else much better.
Please excuse my twisted logic; I think I get it from reading some of the posts on this board.
Now that I think about it, since all I have to worry about is the worst winters in the US of any place not named Alaska, wildlife galor, and the fact that almost everyone I know has a Suburban/Tahoe/Blazer and/or a four door full-size pickup, I should just stick my family into a little station wagon.
a couple of reasons to get a small ute over a van or a wagon, are that it is smaller that most vans and there are too many awd vans. an suv has a more supple suspension(think potholes and bad pavement) and is easier to get in and out of than a regular wagon. on the other hand wagons have a better rear hatch than a crv.
Oh, lord, haven't we discussed the hatch thing before? To each his own, in our garage, a side opening door was much better than a flip-up door. One of the reasons we used the CR-V to get groceries instead of the Ody. We could open the door about halfway to get the packages out in the garage without the garage door being open. In the Odyssey, halfway gets you nowhere, and all the way up hits the top of the garage.
I agree with the rest of your post, but the hatch thing is purely personal taste, not one better than another. If lived in an urban area and parked on the side of the road, then the side opening door might be a problem, but i have never encountered this in my suburban home.
That said, the CR tests were conducted using the same testing methodology. I'll see if they were done on the same date, but they would have been conducted at the same test grounds.
Here's the point... if we're going to toss out results because the testing methods don't match up, then I guess we should chuck Scape's favorite towing mantra. Because the manufacturer uses different methods and standard's for reporting maximum towing capacity.
For example, Ford has cited max towing capacity for their trucks with only the driver on board and zero cargo. However, with vehicles like the Pilot, MDX, and Odyssey, Honda has published towing capacities assuming the vehicle is loaded with 4 occupants and enough gear for a weekend trip.
We know that in other parts of the world, the CR-V is rated for as much as 2,400 lbs of towing capacity.
Since I've never found out exactly how Honda and Ford load these two vehicles when publishing their specifications, I guess we'd have to call it an apples to oranges comparison.
The NHTSA looked into the fire issue with the CR-V and determined that Honda had correctly identified the issue. They put the investigation on hold pending additional information.
When the fires continued, the NHTSA opened a full investigation. 70% of these full investigations result in a recall. That did not happen this time. The second investigation concluded without issuing a recall. One of the members of this site contacted the NHTSA and got a full explanation. The NHTSA representative explained that this was not a design defect, it was a faulty component. Without that faulty component, the risk of fire is no higher than in any other vehicle.
If a recall had been necessary, Honda could not have stopped it. The NHTSA issues recalls, not Honda. The fact that the NHTSA didn't recommend a recall more or less clears Honda.
That's pretty much what I was saying about general comparisons too. Let me recap a bit since I'm not sure you fully understood the side of the argument that counts. Which is mine of course. :P
It was being argued against what I posted regarding the 0-60 times, which was really just a resource check taken totally out of context BTW, that the CR-V in MTX form is much faster than the Escape V6 in ATX form. True enough we can all agree. However, I argued back that you need to compare the most like models if you want to be fair.
So then, it was later argued that "apples to apples" is no good. You need to take the best of each and pit them against each other for an all out numbers war. Here's where your "apples to oranges" comes into play. I don't buy that and since I was told we could never have an "apples to apples" comparison of these two, I said there's no point to comparing them anymore. It would get too confusing and no one would benefit from such nonsense. I'm sure Edmunds' servers are sighing with relief right now. :sick:
Obviously throwing out all comparisons is not the answer but you do have to draw a line somewhere. I'm interested in hearing suggestions, maybe resulting in a thread title change, but I personally believe we should always pit the top selling trims against each other as that is what visitors to these forums are most likely to park in their driveways. But hey, I like oranges too.
Don't make me cough up my apples/oranges argument again (both round, seeded, grow on trees, yada yada yada).
Steve, Host
Comparing similiar trim levels is a completely different story, and that's where I agree with baggs, since that's what I did before I bought my CR-V SE. However, even when comparing trim levels, I think it's important to consider all of a vehicles attributes, and pick the one which best suits your needs.
If you want to match car versus car in a "fair" fight, then you should use automatic versus automatic. I support that sort of comparison, if you're making judgement about what the market as a whole is going to purchase. If Joe Shmoe came along and asked which has better pick-up, I'd compare using like models.
However, if you're comparing the vehicles with the intent of determining which is faster, then the fastest models should be compared. If Flash McSpeedy wandered in wanting to know which model has the best 0-60 times, I'd compare fastest models. Flash isn't an average buyer. Being "fair" isn't a concern; he wants fast. If he's that hung up on speed, he's probably willing to drive a stick. (Personally, I send him over to buy a Turbo Forester.)
Now, all that said, I posted the CR data because the two models were automatics and the difference was insignificant (0.2 seconds in favor of the Escape).
It's true the difference doubles (0.4 seconds) when you move to the quarter mile test. But it's also true that the CR-V is slightly faster in the 45-65 mph test (by 0.2 seconds).
To answer your earlier question about the handling tests, I think I miss-spoke (miss-wrote?). It was not a traditional slalom run, it was an accident avoidance maneuver.
The CR-V ran the test at 50.0 mph. The Escape ran it at 47.0 mph.
The braking test results were 130 ft. for the CR-V. 144 ft. for the Escape.
I don't share it either in terms of SUVs FWIW. Even in cars I still weigh other things like handling and comfort. But then I'm not your typical buyer either. I do agree that one concerned with speed should buy a manual CR-V but when a general statement like "the CR-V is faster" is made you have to include the facts because in general, meaning in a real world situation, it's really not due to the lack of MTX equipped copies on the road.
However, even when comparing trim levels, I think it's important to consider all of a vehicles attributes, and pick the one which best suits your needs.
It always comes back to this and there's no arguing this point. I don't care who you are or what you know.
It's nice when we all get along.
2006 CR-V SE $24,910
2006 Escape Limited AWD $24,609 (after $1500 rebate)
Tie (no VSC on Escape)
2006 CR-V EX AWD $22,511
2006 Escape XLT V6 AWD $23,173
Advantage Honda (-$662, VSC, sunroof, Steering wheel controls)
2006 CR-V LX AWD $22,354
2006 Escape XLT I4 AWD $22,396
Advantage CRV. $40 cheaper and better equipped with VSC and more powerful engine.
You are getting 2-3mpg better than even Honda claims?? This is stretching the truth in my book... 80mph and 27mpg! LOL!
"The CR-V can do everything in your "list", providing those 2 watercraft do not weigh more than 1500 lbs. Or, the 'V should be able tow 3000 lbs if the trailer has brakes. However, I doubt if anyone will do this; people don't buy CR-Vs for towing."
CRV CANNOT do everything an Escape can do.. Cannot tow 3,500lbs...
Main job of an SUV is to go off-road. If someone tows 3500 lbs on a daily basis, they get a diesel pick up truck. There are plenty CR-V's off roading. So, when was Scape's Escape off the paved road? Maybe Escape can not go off-road, which is the primary function of an SUV?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107785#5