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
Drive 'em forever and don't sweat the depreciation. You can do a lot of maintenance for what a car payment runs you these days.
(Hey Tides, my grades in German were almost as bad as the ones I got in math ).
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Mucky: none of the reports that varmit brings up mentions anyting about CRV's 'outlasting' Escapes.. Keep trollin..
Varmit has my respect because he shows facts in support of his opinion..
Back to Varmit and 'odds'.
Every person weighs the different facts and features about a vehicle differently.. What if in your particular area the Honda dealership was known for poor service, while the Ford dealership was known for good service..
The numbers for Honda are 'perfect' so it is expected that Honda's will have some problems. So it reasonable to see that some folks are willing to put up with the 'odds' in return for better service.
Another factor that also tips the 'odds' in Fords favor is that parts are generally less expensive and easier to find..
In my heart!
FACTS! WHO NEEDS STINKING FACTS!
FACTS, who needs stinking FACTS!!!!!!!!
I posted a USAToday article about CR a couple of months ago, here it is again: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-03-12-crcars.htm
Their long-term data is based on surveys that they send out to subscribers. However, they do not tell you how many owners actually responded for each vehicle. This method is about as unscientific as it gets, because one vehicle could end up with only 100 results while another gets 10,000. You want the numbers to be as close to equal as possible in order to be accurate across the board.
They need to find a better way to make their final results more accurate and equal to be taken seriously. Maybe set the required number of surveys received to a higher number and throw the extras away.
Also, those owners that did send in for the Escape are probably the one's that went through the early recalls. Throw those away because they have nothing to do with long-term reliability, (and you're right, just how do they judge that on a one year old design) and I bet the numbers look a lot better.
On the other hand, for all I know, they could be right on the money when it comes to the Escape and the CR-V. But the fact is, we don't know and in consistencies obviously exist at the mighty CR. So please stop using it as the Bible of all that is automobile. Remember that they devote the other 11/12ths of the year to everything except autos. How does this make them experts again?
muckyduck,
Where are all those numbers showing the CR-V's big advantages? Keep searching.
I also notice once again Edmunds in their comments about 0-60 vs the V6 in the Escape fail to mention the CRV was a 5spd and they had to rev the he.. out of the 2.4 in order to attain these 0-60 numbers. You have to actually read and look to see the CRV was a 5spd... Still no reponse from anyone at Edmunds about how the TCO future resale/depreciation and TMV numbers don't add up, along with no response in the error in data of ground clearance of 7.8 when they list the P235 tire with 16" wheels, which in truth has a ground clearance of 8.5"..
CR is loosing face very quickly.. There are tons of chats around the net about how their numbers just don't add-up.. and how they target readership..
Baggs - That article makes only two interesting points. Grand Am owners didn't fill out the survey. And the JD Powers survey doesn't match up with the CR survey. Given the above-mentioned 90 day survey period for the JD data, this is hardly surprising. That's why JD's survey is an "initial quality" survey and the CR data is called a "reliability rating". Two different animals.
I suppose all I can do is take solace in the notion that you don't read much of anything... "You have to actually read and look to see the CRV was a 5spd..." Yes, Scape you actually have to read. You'll find that quite a few people communicate this way. It's all the rage. I've heard stories of things called "books". Mind you, it could just be some conspiracy cooked up by the Honda people.
What I did write was an answer your questions about Edmunds data. You couldn't find the information, so I found it for you. Don't get upset with me if you don't like what it tells you.
Oh, and I found it interesting that the Escape's test driver wrote that the Escape could really use a 5 speed. :-b
That's about a third of the way through a GeoMetro! :-)
tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
So how is the Sunday service at the Consumers Union building?
Having said that, the CRV braking distances would doubtless be improved by up sizing the Honda's tires. Honda does tend to use less aggressively sized (smaller) tires than the competition. I believe that is due to their emphasis on fuel economy... the same reason they use smaller, high-tech engines.
-james
To further my idiocy, I thought when you hit the brakes YOUR VEHICLE SLOWED DOWN!!! Little did I know that I'd still be doing 60 the last 4 feet of my braking...
Maybe I'ma gonna hafta try me summa dat readin' that there Varmint were talking bout. Maybe then I won't be such an Idiot.
(yes host, its snotty but this arguement is getting old)
The vehicle that you hit would also be pushed forward, thus reducing how far you actually go into it even more.
Read back several posts, scape is talking about the launch "revving" that most Honda engines require you to do in order to obtain the fastest 0-60 times. You rev up to the rpm level where the engine's torque becomes useable, then let go of the clutch. If you don't do this (I don't know about in the CR-V, never driven the five speed) you will usually increase your time by seconds.
Varmit, I do read and thank-you for pointing out where you obtained the information about rain and the CRV brake test. However, this still doesn't explain why Edmunds has not posted this data. And why 3 other comparisons from 3 well known internet car comparison sites also gives the advantage to the Escape..
I have driven a 2002 CRV 5spd and an automatic. There is no way in he.. the automatic even comes close to what the Escape is capable of in passing, merging, 0-60, power, torque.. what ever you want to call it. The 5spd has to be redlined through the gears in order to achieve these 0-60 times..
But upon initial reading (and further rereadings) of your post where you pointed that out, you weren't talking about safety. You just wanted to show that the Escape braked 4 feet better than the CR-V.
Quite frankly, the CR-V takes quite a distance to stop from 60-0. To say that the Escape does it in 4 feet less isn't really saying much.
Go back to the towing and maximum payload arguments that you keep bringing up. At least with those you can trash the CR-V while emulating the Escape.
The next time you drive 4 feet, see just how far that really is. Poor scape2 - he is so desparate to find anything better than the crv. Let him have his fun.
Apparently you are having an equally hard time finding the CR-V's big advantages. We're still waiting for them you know.
Scape2 - You'll be interested to know that MT's test data shows the CR-V going from 50-60mph faster than the Escape. Both were automatics. Both were revving as fast as possible.
On the subject of brakes, the CR-V in indeed inferior to the Escape in overall braking distances. The 60-0 test doesn't show it much, but the 70-0 test really shows the difference. Like Oregonboy, I think it's the small tires that are responsible.
The CR-V's brakes themselves are actually quite good. Both front and rear are large disks (not drums) and come with ABS and EBD. An upgrade to the tires would solve the problem, though most owners won't do that until the first set wears out.
Baggs - I've posted the CR-V several advantages in the past, but Scape2 always brings the conversation back to horsepower and towing. When I have more time to type, I'll list a few once again.
"With engine revving, you can decrease 0-60 times a bit, but not whole seconds."
Are you talking about the CR-V, or all cars in general? Because you can gain upwards of five seconds by launching an S2000 from a higher RPM.
I know what the advantages are for each of them (at least the one's that matter to me), as we have discussed them in the past. I'm just wanted to see if muckyduck actually knows what he is talking about. Apparently he's never been in, or read anything about an Escape and therefore fails to recognize that they are two very comparable vehicles. Most, not all, of the differences are minor.
That's actually kind of funny because my brother-in-law says the same thing. He now drives a 2001 CR-V that I advised him to buy because he knows absolutely nothing about automobiles.
Baggs - I think you're mixing revs with shift points. The S2K does run best when revved before launch, but not 5 seconds. I suspect you are remembering a comparison made by one of the mags where they ran a 0-60 test while shifting at 5,000 rpms, instead of the redline.
Some mags will post 5-60 mph tests (street starts) which are a more realistic measure of how well a car will perform for the average driving. There is no pre-revving in this test. Unfortunately, too few enough magazines perform this test. So, we can't make valid comparisons of the data.
I need a scorecard!
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
If it's a 6-cylinder, I automatically assume it's a V, unless it's a BMW, and some Lexus and GM models.
Here's the Motor Trend article that backs me up:
http://www.motortrend.com/nov99/hondas2000/1.html
They launched from 5500 and came up with an 11+ second 0-60 time. They then launched from 8000, shifted at 8300, and came up with a 5.8 second 0-60 time. So it's actually closer to six seconds.
This is an extreme case, but these time differences are typical of many vehicles that use high tech I4's.
Mazda is going to throw another rotary engine at us real soon too (RX-8). It's getting hard to keep track these days.
-Do you really think we were implying that you would go halfway through the vehicle?
The post said 4' isn't much time to react at 60 MPH. I was addressing that point.
-If you want to get technical, yes you would most likely be going less than 60 mph in the CR-V at the point where the Escape already stopped. More like less than 15 mph I'd guess.
Absolutely correct. Still going to leave a nasty mark, but probably not life threatening.
-The vehicle that you hit would also be pushed forward, thus reducing how far you actually go into it even more.
Again, absolutely correct. But your assuming you're going to hit a car and not a person or deer.
-Read back several posts, scape is talking about the launch "revving" that most Honda engines require you to do in order to obtain the fastest 0-60 times. You rev up to the rpm level where the engine's torque becomes useable, then let go of the clutch. If you don't do this (I don't know about in the CR-V, never driven the five speed) you will usually increase your time by seconds.
I know what he's saying, but this is where I'm now to the point of PLEADING for common sense: Why on earth would ANY reviewer rev up a Honda to test the times and not the Ford? They are going to use the same technique on ALL vehicles. Again, I'm not a gear head and I'm not sure I want to be, but I thought the Torque curve was pretty much flat on the CRV providing MAX TORQUE over a very large range or RPM's. (and I thought that started around 3,000 or 3,500 which isn't all that high)
I just think the arguement that you have to push the engine to get 0-60 numbers is a stupid arguement. EVERY engine is pushed in a 0-60 test, otherwise you aren't getting the fastest time possible from the vehicle.
4 feet could mean life or death to the person your hit or if you're flying over a cliff, but those are extreme cases. (and most cliffs have guard rails that can withstand a 15 MPH impact)
Quicker braking is always beneficial, but lauding 4 feet is like lauding an extra .5 inches of hip room. Sure, ones better. But are you going to notice?
You must have missed this in post #970:
"With an automatic you start from idle every time. Unless you want to drastically shorten the life of your tranny.
Obviously you are going to take them as close to redline as possible when trying to measure a 0-60 time."
As far as I know, they launch automatics from their base idle.
You're right, I believe we did discuss the CR-V's flatter (compared to the old model) torque curve before.
As varmint pointed out, the 0-60 times don't differ much between the auto and the manual equipped models. There are several factors that can contribute to this time difference, but the lack of pre-revving in the auto is surely one.
I can conceed that the RPM's are HIGHER than the Ford auto-tranny, but not exactly reving the daylights out of it either.
"On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds."
This would be the rough equivalent of manually shifting the Escape or CR-V at about 3,600 rpms. Basically, that's driving the car without pushing it at all. So I don't think the lack of pre-revving is the real culprit in your example.
As for how they test automatics, Edmunds lists their testing method for the Escape.
"The best run was the first run using a braking start while manually shifting from first to second and second to third."
And shifting manually??? Was that so they could keep the revs down, do you think??? Certainly they wouldn't "rev the h" out of it would they?
All sarcasm aside, of course testers push ALL cars tested beyond the point that a rational owner would in order to achieve the best results.
In reality, I suspect that with a "street start" test, the Escape would win by a larger margin than in the conventional 0-60 test... but that is just my opinion.
-james
More advantages for the Escape.... More standard payload, more max payload, more GVWR..
9.3 for the automatic CRV???? that is a full second lower or more at other car sites.
More advantages for the Escape, more Horspower, more torque, more towing, better looking, better stero system, more bang for your hard earned buck!
Even someone cuts me off at 60, I know I don't stop down to 0.
As for advantages... Take a look at fuel economy, cargo space, cargo configurations, crash safety, resale, transmission choices, passenger volume, less weight, more refinement, a full-size spare... oh... and don't forget the picnic table.
Here's a few for those of us who so enjoy your repetitive lists, "reliability, quality, and unimpeachable mechanical trustworthiness". Or, in other words, more things that actually work for your buck.
Even if they did push the S2000 up to redline from a standing start, there still would have been a difference in seconds. So it does back up my notion that times increase by seconds if you don't maximize power on launch. I'm going to leave it at that because this was just an example.
You know, we already went over all of those CR-V "advantages" that you pointed out above. The only one's that anyone would really notice are the fuel economy and the transmission options.
Cargo space is about equal, but the CR-V does have more room from top to bottom which can be useful at times.
Cargo configurations are equal too. Your old CR-V did a better job at this one. The Escape can do everything the new one can.
Crash Safety is excellent in both of them. You even said yourself a while back that the one star difference (passenger frontal I believe is where they differ) doesn't really mean much.
Resale has not been established for the model we are comparing here, so I wouldn't call it an advantage just yet. Barring any major catastrophes, I'd expect it to be slightly higher because of Honda's reputation.
Passenger volume is barely more than the Escape. We're talking tenths of inches here. Except for the rear leg room with the bench pushed all the way back.
Less weight? Fuel economy and performance will stem off of this, but I wouldn't really classify it as an advantage on its own. Less weight is usually detrimental to performance in the snow.
Refinement is in the eye of the beholder. It's not something we can measure. Same for reliability, quality and unimpeachable mechanical trustworthiness. CR is highly inaccurate (people believe them though), and JD Power only reports data for the first few months of ownership.
The full size spare is a nice touch. But I'd be afraid to put anything heavier than a can of pop (that's soda for the rest of you) or beer on the picnic table. Throw it away and make use of the extra storage space I say.
The Escape's max payload according to Edmunds is 978 lbs.. Carpoint, which is where you got the CR-V's numbers I believe, lists it at 1120 lbs. giving us a difference of 87 lbs. (in favor of the Escape) between the two. Note that Edmunds does not list this figure for the CR-V so I don't know who is right or who is wrong, and I didn't look anywhere else for any more numbers.
Baggs, what exactly do you do on your picnic table that would require holding more weight than some food? I 'm sure Varmint wasn't really implying this was a MAJOR advantage over the Escape. The picnic table is a neat way to replace that useless flimsy old piece of pressboard everyone else uses to cover the rear well. Would I buy a CRV over an Escape because of it? Not in this lifetime....
As far as MAX Payload goes (and here's where my not being a gear head comes in again...) You show the CRV as having a higher Max Payload. DOesn't that imply that the CRV can haul more weight IN the vehicle?
Escape has about an 80lb advantage over the CRV in standard payload and max payload, and a 200lb advantage over the cRV in GVWR and a 2000lb advantage over the CRV in towing capacity, and 40HP advantage over the cRv, and a 40ft/lbs of torque advantage over the CRV. Facts are facts, these are advantages.
MPG, the CRV has a 3MPG advantage over the Escape in city driving and a 2MPG advantage over the Escape on the HWY. Now, I know I'm going to hear.. My CRV gets 50MPG to the gallon and all real world Escape owners are not getting 23MPG on the HWY they are really getting 10MPG.. right?
Yeah, sorta like how the Ford crowd plays down the CR-V's advantage in interior space. 40.9 inches (CR-V) vs. 40.4 inches (Escape) in headroom. 53.5 inches in rear hip room vs. 49 inches for the Escape. 39.4 inches in rear leg room vs. 36.4 inches in the Escape.
And what do you say? "Oh it's only 0.5 difference, it's only an inch more." And yet you hold onto 4 feet in braking distance like it's so significant, considering that it takes the CR-V (as well as the Escape) so much more than that to brake from 60-0.
They also have a "Vehicle Dependability Study" which rates by manufacturer cars after 4-5 years. Guess what? Ford (overall rank #17) had 361 problems per 100 vehicles, and Honda and Toyota (overall rank #6) had 278. The best was Lexus at 173. This was based on 1997 vehicles.
I love to read this board - makes me laugh. I'm eagerly waiting for everyone's response to my post.
Well I hope you're laughing WITH us and not AT us.
No. You're wrong on this one. Tenths of a second? Yes. Full seconds? No. If you buy into the notion that pre-revving is not realistically possible with an automatic transmission, then the auto vs manual comparison would be as close as we can get. This typically results in difference of about 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. Yet, as I explained earlier, there are more differences in that comparison than just prerevving. Gearing and slush-box efficiency are also culprits. If you divide up that > 1 second difference between the three possible explanations, you do not get several seconds.
Moving along... I didn't intend for that list to be completely serious. I know we've already talked about a few. It was directed more at Scape2 who keeps parroting the same information like a broken record. However, there are a few serious items on the list...
The NHTSA tests are pretty close. The CR-V does have an advantage, but I wouldn't call it a huge one, though it is worth noting. My wife rides in the passenger seat. It's important to me.
In addition to that, the Euro NCAP results were just published for the CR-V. This combines an off-set frontal test (like the IIHS test) with a side impact test (like the NHTSA's). The CR-V scores a 4, which is pretty much the rough equivalent of a "good" rating from the IIHS.
The Escape scores a "Marginal" ranking on the IIHS test.
They are the same tests, but the results are calculated differently. So I would not compare them directly and call it the gospel truth. However, it backs up the claim Honda made based on their internal testing. The CR-V is very likely to earn a "Good" rating making it superior (Scape's favorite word) to the Escape in this regard.
FWIW, the CR-V also scored very high in the auto vs pedestrian crash. We don't have a comparison for the Escape.
When I spoke about cargo configurations, I was talking about all around options. I don't believe that the Escape has a wet/dry storage area. I'm pretty sure that the rear bench doesn't slide back and forth 6-7 inches. The CR-V's rear seats fold forward without removing the headrests (correct me if I'm wrong, but the Escape's require stowing them).
The picnic table in my CR-V can support my 200+ lbs. The new one is supposed to be larger and even more sturdy. Will it make or break a purchase? No, never. But, as someone mentioned above, it beats having a cardboard cover.
I would agree that the Escape is big enough in terms of interior dimensions. But if we're going to waste time disputing things like 0-60 times, 4 feet of stopping distance, and picnic tables, I figure any advantage is an advantage. This one undoubtedly goes to the CR-V.
As for refinement, it is a broad category and somewhat subject to opinion. Some people care about it and others don't. But that can also be said about every other item we've discussed. Here's my breakdown...
The CR-V is generally less noisy when compared to the Escape. The CR-V has a smooth-revving and quiet engine, though it does suffer from some tire noise. The Escape has a rough-revving engine and suffers from more wind noise. While neither vehicle is a hearse, the CR-V comes out ahead.
Fit and finish goes to the Honda. It's been published so many times, I don't think I need to repeat it.
Then there's the overall quality studies. So far, every one of them has ranked the CR-V higher than the Escape.