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.
Options

CR-V vs Escape

24567167

Comments

  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Rear wheels? Both are FWD until there is slippage.

    The auto vs stick would be part of it, but it doesn't explain everything. When compared with other manual shifting cars in this class, the CR-V still does better. A Soob Forester kicks out a few more hp and a tad bit more torque as well. Tested with it's five speed manual transmission, it runs in the low to mid 9's. The most common time I've seen is 9.3 The Forester has a 5 speed manual, significantly less weight, better aerodynamics, and more power. The '02 CR-V is at least half a second faster. I didn't find recent times for the V6 powered GV, but that is also offered with a 5 speed and wasn't much competition of the last generation CR-V.

    I'm not saying that the automatic gear box isn't part of the difference, but clearly there is more to it than that. An automatic slushbox alone should not sap away a 40hp/lb-ft advantage.
  • indylowflyerindylowflyer Member Posts: 148
    The point is the Escape with a V-6 is much more desireable day in and day out versus a 4 cyclinder CRV, manual or automatic. For me, the lack of a 6 cylinder in the CRV immediately eliminated it from my purchase choices. I can not believe Honda redesigns the CRV and doesn't offer a 6 cylinder engine as an option. This IMO, is a major error, as it makes the CRV inferior to its competitors.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Indylowflower - That's fine. It's your perogative to demand a V-6, but how about explaining why.

    From my point of view I see no need for it. Obviously, the 4 cyl CR-V accelerates well enough. We know that it gets significantly better mpg. The smaller engine allows for the car to achieve LEV II emission standards. The small block also leaves room for better crush zones (the CR-V is expected to earn top ratings in both the NHTSA and IIHS crash tests). And with less engine up front, there's more room for people and stuff in the rest of the vehicle.

    Are there tradeoffs? You betcha. A fully loaded CR-V isn't going to race to 60 mph with the same authority as a V6 Escape. But that's a small price to pay for all the benefits listed above.

    Now, if Ford can build their hybrid model despite their layoffs and plant closings... Then they will get my attention. It takes more than power to compete in the market today.
    http://www.autoweek.com/carnews/index.mv
  • indylowflyerindylowflyer Member Posts: 148
    Just prefer to have extra power for passing on two lane highways, accelerating onto interstates, and when carrying four adults plus cargo, still plenty of power. I believe the Escape's 6 is a LEV. I am interested to see if the hybrid can accelerate like the V-6, as Ford is claiming. If it does, it would be a big step forward to have this vehicle get 40 m.p.g. I would consider purchasing one when it is time to trade our 2001. And finally,the added benefit of the 6 is the extra fun it provides when driving.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    the Escape V6 is LEV. There is a sticker on my side window along with being in my manuals. The MPG advantage is not that significant when comparing the V6 automatic to the 4cyl automatic.. The Escape gets about 18/23 and the CRV gets 22/26. I would say the V6 is very much worth the 3-4MPG difference. Honda dropped the ball and should offer a V6 in the CRV.... An Escape will plain out accelerate, out tow, out pull, out haul, out and out manhandle a CRV.. Besides, if I have a loaded vehicle I want to power to pass, climb those steep grades and most of all be able to get out of the way If I need too... The interior sizes are also quite close. Honda wins some, Ford wins some....
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    Someone wrote this:

    "The point is the Escape with a V-6 is much more desireable day in and day out
    versus a 4 cyclinder CRV (sic)"

    That may be your OPINION but it isn't mine and many others. Arrogance is an ugly trait.

    And a Ford owner saying "Honda dropped the ball by not putting a V6 in the CRV (sic)" is another opinion. Obviously from someone who doesn't understand the CR-V and what it is supposed to be.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    On a test track. I didn't find the Escape to be one bit faster than the CRV. If there was any difference I sure couldn't tell.

    Wonder which will hold up better and have decent resale down the road...?
  • tiredofmanualtiredofmanual Member Posts: 338
    I suppose the two you drove to be empty vehicles. In the case of using the vehicle as a commuter car, then the CR-V is the better choice because of similar [unloaded] performance and better gas mileage. However, if you do use the SUV to haul stuff around, the Escape is a better choice because of the V6.

    Reliability is pretty much a moot point these days as long as you take care of the car.
    Resale value - Honda all the way. Good if you buy new, bad if you buy used. If you keep the car for more than 5 or 6 years it's meaningless.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Had four people in them. We switched off.

    As far as reliability....well...maybe Ford has made some strides in that area. Time will tell.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "What we really want is a Ford Escape built by Honda."

    The Columbian Auto Review

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    "An Escape will plain out accelerate, out tow, out pull, out haul, out and out manhandle a CRV"


    So it's a machismo thing?


    I think it's pretty clear that the Escape does not out accelerate the manual CR-V. If anything, the CR-V may have a slight advantage as it's times have been consistently in the 8.5 second range. And it's a whole lot more fun to drive a 5 speed than an automatic. While there isn't enough published data to make comparisons between automatics, it seems likely that the Escape's advantage is only about half a second.


    Loaded up, I'm sure that there will be a more significant difference. But how often do you feel it necessary to drive in a "sporty" manner with a car full of people or 1,000 lbs of bricks in the back? There is such as thing as overkill. With 90% of peak torque available from 2250 - 5500 rpms, the CR-V has enough for passing and climbing hills while loaded. The only practical difference that might matter to people (very few) is the fact that the Escape has a significantly better towing rating.


    I never said that the Escape is not an LEV. The difference is that the CR-V is an LEV II (the "II" indicates Tier Two standards). The Tier Two standards will go into effect in a few years. An LEV II is significantly clearner running than the LEV rating that is in effect today. It's closer to the ULEV status you may be familiar with.


    I wouldn't call a 3-4 mpg difference significant if the Escape actually got those EPA figures. Even magazines, which almost never publish annecdotal evidence, have reported that the EPA numbers are optimistic. While many owners do see the predicted fuel efficiency, very few exceed it, and a large number have reported worse than expected averages. In contrast, the CR-V's EPA rating seem pretty accurate. There are owners who are getting less than expected, but there are also quite a few who are getting 28-30 mpg on the highway.


    To add insult to injury, the upcoming Honda Pilot (240 hp and LEV or ULEV status) is expected to get about the same mpg as the MDX (17-23 mpg). This is a rather large mid-sized SUV. In comparison, the Escape's EPA estimates are simply not all that impressive.


    When the mpg estimates and emissions are combined to create an overall rating, the 2WD CR-V is found at the top of the list. The 4WD model is also the best of the class when you eliminate 2WDs.


    The last generation CR-V was a good comparison with the Escape in terms of interior space. The '02 model surpasses it. With 72 cu.ft. of cargo space, the CR-V is only bested by the 4,000 lbs Santa Fe. Passenger space is 108 cu.ft. which technically places the CR-V in the mid-sized class. The truth is that both vehicles have perfectly adequate passenger space (once again, there is such a thing as overkill), but cargo space definately goes to the CR-V.


    As for dropping the ball... Ford should be thankful that Honda did not shoehorn a small V6 under the hood. As it stands, the '02 CR-V is already catching up with the Escape in terms of sales. Honda sales in November were close to the Escape (10.7K vs 13K). I believe that November was the first month that the new CR-V was available and was on sale for only part of the month. Production isn't even in full swing (Honda has another plant in Europe that hasn't begun production), so when supply starts to meet demand, sales will most likely catch and possibly surpass the Escape.


    If anybody dropped the ball, it was Ford and Mazda who failed to offer a competitive 4 cylinder engine. The Ztec is completely outmatched hauling around the hefty body of the Escape. That may explain why they are already making plans to bulk up with the 2.3L four from the Ranger.

  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    What?, no noticable difference between the V6 and a 4cyl? You didn't notice the 40HP or the 40ft/lbs of torque difference? This I will never believe.
    No, this isn't a macho thing. Fact is the Escape V6 will out accelerate, out pull, out tow the CRV.
    Honda did drop the ball by not putting in a V6. the 4cyl just can't put out the torque needed to tow or haul like a V6 can. Why is it that Fords MPG numbers are wrong, yet Honda is right on the money with MPG numbers? My average MPG is about 22 in my V6 Escape.
    Escape made more sales than CRV in its FIRST year of production. CRV used to be number one. In ONE year the Escape took the crown. Ford doesn't have to put incentives on the Escape because they are selling so well. Dealers can't get enough allotments from the factory. Some smaller dealers sell out of their allotments each month! How do I know this, I have a friend who is a Manager at a very large Ford dealership. No way will the CRV catch or even surpass the Escape in sales. Honda has no where near the capacity as Ford does to manufacture vehicles. As much as you want to discount the V6, this is what the consumer wants and Ford/Mazda/Jeep/Saturn have delivered. Granted the Zetec is weak when comparing 4cyl engines. But, you fail to mention, the majority of Escapes sold are V6's. And you fail to mention the 4cyl Escape is thousands less than a comparable CRV. 5spds are few and far between. Automakers are going to automatics because the MPG difference between the two have diminished, along with cost difference, along with the majority of people not wanting them.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    and check your torque comment also about how the CRV makes 90 percent of its torque between 2250-5500rpms. This makes no sense since the CRV makes its full torque of 162ft/lbs at 3,600rpms and reaches max HP of 160 at 6,000rpms.
    The V6 in the Escape is superior.. It makes its 196 (or 200) ft/lbs (just matters where you read it and who you choose to believe) at 4,700rpms and reachs max HP of 201 at 5,900 rpms. How can isellhondas say they didn't notice a difference? The facts and numbers and physics don't lie....
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Actually it does make sense. 90% of its torque is between 2250 through 5500 rpm - which means that 100% (full torque; max) is indeed at 3600 rpm, while at 2250 rpm, 90% of that power (NOT 100%) is also available. And AFTER 3600, it is no longer at 100% torque, but still can offer 90% (roughly 145 lb-ft) of the power up to 5500 rpm.

    A 4WD Escape V-6 is only roughly 170 lb. heavier than a 4WD CR-V...the 40 extra lb-ft of torque and horsepower will more than make up for that extra weight.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    99% of what is said here are just opinions.

    That is obvious.

    We are all entitled to an opinion.

    No need to bash someone for their opinion.

    That's my opinion.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    It would be a pretty boring highway if we all liked the same thing.
  • tiredofmanualtiredofmanual Member Posts: 338
    and take back the sales crown. Bill Ford has said that Ford will break out of its slump by building better vehicles, so hopefully Ford will respond with a better Escape (followed by a better CRV followed by a better Escape, etc). We can only hope that Ford does not rest on the past success of the Escape (as it is doing with the Focus) and not try to one-up the CRV, because we all know that Honda is game.

    Positive signs:
    1. The Duratec V6 used in the Escape is putting out 220+ HP in other applications.
    2. The Mazda 6 will use a variant of the Duratec V6 and it has been confirmed that it will be offered with a manual transmission. Therefore, Ford will have a manual tranny in it's parts bin that bolts up to the Escape V6.
    3. Valencia (Spain) Engine plant #2 goes online later this year, giving Ford the capability to produce 700,000 more Duratec 4-cyl engines per year.
    4. The new 2.3 Duratec used in the Ranger is manufactured in the same plant as the SPI engine used as the base engine for the Focus sedan. The SPI engine will cease production in 2003, leaving room for Ford to expand production of the 2.3, giving them enough engines to use in the Escape.

    Will Ford use this to pass up the CRV once again? I hope so, because I'd like to see how Honda would respond.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    see #56

    "Arrogance is an ugly trait"

    IMHO, this statement bashes another person's preference (and therefore opinion), and by making a broad assumption that someone's "need" for a more powerful vehicle is 100% ego based.

    Again, just my opinion.
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    I'm all for opinions but this is what was written:

    "The point is the Escape with a V-6 is much more desireable day in and day out versus a 4 cyclinder CRV, manual or automatic"

    If that's an opinion it certainly borders on the arrogant side to say the least.

    An opinion would be .......is much more desirable TO ME...... Maybe that's what was meant but that isn't what was written.
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    You obvioulsy have failed to understand what the CR-V is intended as.

    You wrote (more than once) "Honda did drop the ball by not putting in a V6. the 4cyl just can't put out the torque needed to tow or haul like a V6 can"

    The CR-V wasn't designed to tow or haul (other than what is inside).

    Then you write "As much as you want to discount the V6, this is what the consumer wants and Ford/Mazda/Jeep/Saturn have delivered" (canadatwo is this an opinion as well?)

    So you know what EVERY consumer wants? Well you missed one, ME (and apparently quite a few others based on the CR-V's sales).

    Stop indicting the vehicle because it doesn't meet YOUR definition of what an SUV should be.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Guess I hit a nerve there...


    Sales: Read 'em and weep. The numbers for December just came in. The Escape and Liberty have been surpassed in the first month, not year, of '02 CR-V sales. We'll have to wait and see if that trend continues.


    I just read that TruckTrend has an article comparing the Escape, CR-V, RAV4, and Freelander. According to the posting, the testers liked the Freelander best. Given that this is TruckTrend, it's no big surprize that they chose the "truckiest" model. Anyway... Both the CR-V and the Escape were automatics. 0-60 times were 8.93 and 9.1. Wanna guess which one was the CR-V? The RAV4, which was a 5speed, bested both of them with 8.9 seconds.

  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    That thing is slower than molasses. During last year's Truck of the Year comparo, the RAV4 was tested as being the penultimate performer in terms of 0-60 times. The only car that was slower than it was a 4-cylinder Santa Fe.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    I gotta disagree that we NEED to qualify everything we say here with a "in my opinion" or "for my requirements". It is just understood.

    If a poster says that a vehicle is more desirable because it has a V6, it is obviously an opinion only. No need to jump all over him for not qualifying his statement.

    A more suitable response (as some have done) is:
    "Yes, more power can be useful for some people in some situations, but for my needs, a 4 banger is better because . . . . ."

    Of course all of the above is just my opinion.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Diploid - Every dog has its day. While the RAV may have the least HP and torque, it's also the lightest of the mini-SUVs. Mated to a 5 speed tranny, I bet it could be flogged across the finish line rather quickly. Even the last gen CR-V posted 0-60 times of 8.6 (MT) and 8.9 (Edmunds) when driven with a manual.

    Now, when we start seeing consistently low times (like we are for the '02 CR-V), then we can make something of it.

    Canadatwo - I agree. Nuff said. =)
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    Every small SUV consumer wants a 4 cylinder vehicle.

    There is no noticeable difference between the 4 cylinder CR-V and the V6 Escape

    Ford dropped the ball by putting an anemic 4 cylinder in the Escape

    You're right, this is fun. I'll be back with some more.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Nah, I don't think we can make blanket statements like that. But it would make the forum more interesting. =)

    The 2.4L provides enough power for daily driving, hauling cargo and people, and, in combination with aggressive gearing and a lower curb weight, it sprints fairly well. But it's not a perfect world. The CR-V and other four cylinders still cannot match the towing capacity of the V6 competitors. Then there's that machismo thing I mentioned earlier. So there is still plenty of market left over for the V6s.

    My position in this thread is that a V6 is not required. Some buyers will find the 4 cyl more desireable. The "mini-ute" class originated as an economical and cute alternative to the ever growing midsize SUVs. While a number of people see it as a cheap way to get a manly SUV, there is a large number of people who still want the economy part of the deal. That's why the 4 cyls are still selling well.
  • utopiautopia Member Posts: 24
    Edmunds comparison report shows the Tribute max. cargo capacity @ 63 cu. ft., but the Mazda Tribute brochure states it's 74.4 cu. ft. If Mazda's own brochure is correct, that would make its cargo capacity (w/rear seat folded up) larger than the '02 CR-V @ 72 cu. ft. Does anyone know which is accurate?
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    now that's generalizing!
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    to question Edmunds data. They also show torque on the Escape at 196ft/lbs. There are many places on the net that show 200ft/lbs of torque, along with my brochures... And another good point about cargo data.
    OK, The CRV did not fit my criterea. I needed a mini-ute that could haul and tow. I have two jet skiis, 2 kids, my wife and gear. No-way could the CRV handle all this going into the mountains. I also have a luggage holder ontop! The Escape handles this with no problem. I can keep up with traffic and not worry about being honked at for holding traffic up. The fact is the V6 just plain out powers the 2.4 in the CRV.
    In MY OPINION... Honda needs to put a V6 in the CRV. The MPG number difference is low when comparing the advantage.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Great site by the way on vehicle sales..
    It will be interesting to see if this trend does continue with the CRV. Granted the CRV did outsell the Escape for one month. But.. for the year the Escape sold over 40,000 more Escapes than CRV's... I also wonder if Tribute numbers should be included with Escape numbers since they are both basically the same thing..
    The RAV4 is selling terribly and so is the Forester. This is a shock. I always thought the RAV4 was a big seller.
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    You seem to have a double standard. When I make the above statements (they were in jest for anyone who can't figure it out) I am "generalizing". But when someone else makes the same type of statement it is an opinion. So which is it?
  • chevycamchevycam Member Posts: 54
    As Tim the Tool man Tailor would say.

    Why drive a four banger when a six can be had?
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Why dump fuel into a six when a four will do the job? =)
  • rfruthrfruth Member Posts: 630
    Soon we can have the power, acceleration & torque of the 6 better MPG than the 4 and it will called a hybrid Escape http://www.hybridford.com, same package we now have and at about the same price. Corse Honda, not known for resting on it's laurels will probably have a hybrid version of the CR-V soon.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Yeah, not that's what I'm talking about! If Ford builds one of those (that works), they will have my attention.

    As for Honda, yes, they have already stated that if the hybrid Civic sells well enough, they will add a hybrid option for the CR-V. FWIW, the standard engine in Europe and the JDM is a 2.0, not the US 2.4 version. It's similar to the 160 HP engine used in the base RSX and is a good possibility as the engine for a hybrid CR-V here in the US.

    I checked the Ford corporate site last night (looking for a torque curve) and it lists the same numbers as Edmunds. Somewhere in this, there's a wise crack about the reliability of Ford's brochures being equal to their products, but I'll leave it alone. =)

    Edmunds data is frequently incorrect or misleading. They often post numbers for one trim that do not apply to another. I believe they have the curb weight of the 5 speed CR-V listed for the automatic and vice versa.

    My understanding is that the Tribute has 64 cu.ft. or cargo space, while the Escape has 63. I'm told that the difference is a result of the rear seats folding flatter in the Tribute. I've seen the 74 cu.ft. rating in at least magazine when the Tribute was first introduced (one of those "first drive" articles). I think it's the result of a misprint that has been perpetuated accidentally.
  • indylowflyerindylowflyer Member Posts: 148
    You are taking cheap shots at Ford; ie, " that works". It is possible for an American car company to beat Honda to the market with a working/reliable hybrid suv. Ford and GM are producing world class vehicles that the foreign automakers are not able to match. (Explorer/GM trips, Vette, F-150/GM Silverado, Expedition/Tahoe Suburban, Caddy STS to name a few) Again you make a statement questioning the "reliability of Ford's Brochures being equal to there products." Give me a break! I guess Ford is all wrong and Honda is all right. The CRV, like the Escape are very good vehicles. The Escape is class leading in many areas and the sales and lack of incentives bear this out. One month of sales does not make a year. Let's wait and see, I would expect a new/ redesigned model in its first month of sales to do well- it had better or it would not bode well for its future sales.

    IMO, I feel Honda has limited its self to the 4 banger crowd by not offering a six. I know we eliminated it from our choice because of this reason. IT IS surprising to alot of people that Honda redesigns the CRV and doesn't even offer a six as an option-they finally offered one for the Accord a few years ago. Why? Oh, probably to keep up with the competition and offer the Accord buyer an option that most other vehicles in their class offer.

    The Escape IS as good or better in many areas as the redesigned CRV, let alone comparing it to the old model-again IMO.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    It's not only possible that a Ford HEV will be first, I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. Ford is banking on it big time. If you read back through this thread, you'll find that this is not the first time I've shown support for the project.

    Yah, the "that works" comment was a cheap shot, but, given the Escape's history, you have to admit that it's a valid concern for buyers. If I'm giving the impression that I think the Ford is a piece of junk, then I do need to tone it down a bit. However, take a look at what I'm responding to.

    Regarding sales, I was told that the CR-V would "NEVER" surpass the Escape. Someone also posted that Honda had "dropped the ball". The very next day, we see the CR-V regain the top sales slot. And I immediately stated that we'd have to wait to see a trend. I may be overzealous, but I'm not jumping to conclusions.

    We've also discussed the speeds of these two vehicles. In fact, that issue is what prompted Scape2 to open this discussion. It was explained that the CR-V had several advantages other than shear power which enabled it to reach 60 mph in such a low time. Gearing, weight, and smaller diameter tires (which is basically a different form of gearing) are all in the CR-V's favor. I began to question if that alone was enough to overcome the Escape's 40 HP/torque advantages and introduced other possibilities (tranny efficiency) Instead of a discussion about what else might explain the 0-60 results, I got denial. That lead us to discussions like, "The Escape will out-tow, out-haul, out-pull, and out-manhandle the CR-V". Aside from being redundant, that sort of thing is bound to provoke a strong response.

    Anyway, on to other things...

    I liked what Tiredofmanual had to say earlier. The constant redesigning and competition improves the breed. This is true if, and only if, you are one of the people that agrees with the improvements. Take your example of the Accord. Honda had a fuel efficient car that was small, affordable, and reliable for use as a economical family car. 20 years later it's an expensive car that gets about the same mpg. Why? Because the "improvement" was to add more power than any car really needed. Honestly, if we keep going the way we are, economy cars will still be getting 30 mpg and have 300 hp in about 10 years. Honda had to keep up with the demands of the market and the market "changed".

    Okay, back to the CR-V and Escape. Back in the 80's the SUV boom started. The Blazer, the Bronco II, and the Cherokee were the front runners. All were about the same size and price. The Pathfinder, 4Runner, and others followed. The Explorer trumped them with a bigger vehicle, more equipment, and a higher price tag. Through the early 90's, everybody followed the Explorer's lead. We ended up with much larger vehicles, gobs of power from huge engines, bigger gas bills, and price tags ranging into the mid $30K range with all the optional equipment.

    Why was the first CR-V so popular? Because it was the same size and relative price as the 1980's vehicles that started it all. What has the Xterra and Escape brought to the table? More power from bigger engines, lower fuel economy, and higher prices with more equipment. As little as 3 years ago, this class of cars was called a "mini-ute" or a "cute-ute". Now they are called "small sport utilities".

    Do you see the trend here? The winner isn't the vehicle that keeps offering "more". It's the vehicle that offers what the market wants. If the manufacturers keep trying to out-accelerate, out-haul, out-tow, and out-manhandle the competition, they are simply going to become mid-sized vehicles. Someone is going to come along and create a brand new class of vehicles and call it the mini-ute!!! And that someone is going to make big bucks.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    simple.

    your "in-jest" statement was prefaced with the "EVERYONE" word.
    That's generalizing in the worst way.

    Different than just making a statement that is your opinion.
  • topsail33topsail33 Member Posts: 19
    #11 of 89 scape2 by colorado1974 Jan 11, 2002 (08:55 am)
    If you are looking for towing and hauling 4 people, then the perfet SUV for you is the Jeep Liberty. Not only is it roomier but it has the best tow rating at 5000 pounds. It is also a much safer and better built vehicle. Plus it doesn't have recalls to fix steering columns falling out at highway speed.

    which vehicle had steering column problems? I test drove the Liberty 4cyl w/ 5 speed. I liked everything about the vehicle, except the lack of power and the shifting felt just like an old truck: very unsmooth. The 4 cyl is way too small for a vehicle that heavy. I didn't drive the V-6, but would assume it would be okay.
  • indylowflyerindylowflyer Member Posts: 148
    The "Big Three" are certainly producing much better quality vehicles in relation to their competition. The imports have made the American vehicle quality better over the past few years. They've had to get better or else.

    The Escape is due for a redesign for the 2004 model year which will certainly improve it. As an example, the new Explorer is much, much better(as the GM trips as well) than the previous models.

    It is interesting to see the small/mini suv market grow so rapidly. IMO, the Escape, CRV, Liberty,and Rav4 are all winners.

    Regarding another post, should we count the Tribute's sales as well since it is virtually the same vehicle?
  • chevycamchevycam Member Posts: 54
    I haven't seen a 4 cylinder that will truly do the job of a 6 cylinder.

    Load it down, turn the AC on and then see which one will pass that semi on a two lane road the fastest!

    Add a superchip and Borla exhaust and you shave a conservative .5 sec. off the 0-60 on the Escape.

    And all of this without the seating position of a bus. Honda needs to work on that problem.
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    Indylowflyer - I'm sure that the Tribute does cut into the Escape's sales a bit. So counting them as the same car for sales purposes makes sense in that regard. IIRC, Honda would've sold 13K while Ford/Mazda combined would have sold 14K.

    However, with Ford and Mazda combined, you now have more than double the retail power that Honda has. Honda is already fighting an uphill battle against Ford alone. The example that is often used in these cases is McDonalds. McDonalds doesn't have the best hamburgers in the world, but because of their advertising presence and the shear number of locations, they have the best selling burgers.

    The reason why I compare sales isn't to prove that one vehicle is better than another. It's to prove that there is a market for the CR-V.

    Chevycam - Have you looked at the '02 CR-V, or are you talking about the old model?

    Take a look at the V6 versions of the Xterra, Santa Fe, Suzuki GV, and the XL-7. The '02 CR-V is so much faster than these, it may win a 0-60 shootout with an anchor hanging out the back.

    If you want to get into tuned performance, Acura used the 2.4L four cylinder in the recently shown RD-X concept car. The engine generates 200 HP (plus more from the IMA system). If the 160 hp CR-V can out accelerate the V6 competition, what do you think a 200hp version can do?

    I fully agree that the CR-V isn't going to tow as much as the Escape, but it isn't because of the four banger under the hood. You could drop a Dodge V10 under the hood and it would still only tow 1,500 lbs.

    Good towing requires a frame and suspension that is tuned for the job. The CR-V isn't designed to be good at towing. Towing ratings are set by the manufacturer and take into account the vehicle's actual ability, then they subtract however much their lawyers tell them to based on the potential for a lawsuit. As a general rule Honda under-rates all their cars in certain aspects because they don't want to deal with a lawsuit when someone does something stupid. In markets outside of North America the CR-V is rated for a more reasonable 2,000 lbs even though it's the same basic vehicle. I agree that it is a weakness, but it's not because of the engine. The original HI Scout was also a four banger.

    Towing is one of those things that the CR-V does not do well. Honda doesn't care because it doesn't have a significant impact on sales. They might lose 200 sales each year because of it, but they saved much more money in R&D costs and factory tooling.

    Honda has changed the position of the steering wheel. Once again, have you even looked at the '02 model?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Now, I've been selling CRVS since they came out in 1997 and have sold tons of them.

    NEVER have I heard a comment about the seating position. Most people like it!

    Only in Town Hall....
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    You apparently need some help reading posts. He made "generalizations" but because they are about the Escape they are apparently acceptable. DOUBLE STANDARD.

    He said EVERY consumer wants a V6 - OPINION OR GENERALIZATION?

    He said the Escape can out haul, out tow, blah blah, blah - OPINION OR GENERALIZATION?

    It is my OPINION that the Escape is a fine vehicle for someone who wants a V6. It is my OPINION that the CR-V is a fine vehicle for someone who wants a 4 cylinder. MY OPINION.
  • carguy62carguy62 Member Posts: 545
    "The "Big Three" are certainly producing much better quality vehicles in relation to their competition."

    Which big three?
    Which competition?
  • varmitvarmit Member Posts: 1,125
    The big three have made tremendous strides over the past decade. The problem is, so have the Japanese, Koreans, and Europeans. Still, US manufacturers are slowly closing the gap.
  • corey76corey76 Member Posts: 63
    Saturn VUE.
  • indylowflyerindylowflyer Member Posts: 148
    Would comprise the big three. Really talking about GM, Ford, and Chrysler versus Toyota, Honda, etc.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    sorry, but you are wrong.

    he never used the word "EVERY"

    you assumed it. you mis-quoted him based on his assumption.

    mis-quoting is a no no.

    By the way, I have owned several Honda's and have one now. Had a V6 4x4 Escape but got rid of it. My favourite thing about it was the torquey and powerful V6 and decent performance with an automatic. *I* was always a 5-speeder, buy in an SUV I prefer an automatic.
Sign In or Register to comment.