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

11920222425167

Comments

  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    freeber,
    I was just joking about the picnic table. I know varmint, or anyone else in their right mind, wouldn't let that thing carry much weight in their final decision. By the way, Ford offers a picnic table for the Escape as an accessory. It has an L shaped bar that bolts into the trailer hitch, then the table attaches to the top. It's actually kind of nice because it sticks out far enough to allow for the rear hatch to open and close. It's a little pricey though. You pay extra for your roof rails, and we have to pay extra for our picnic table. Go figure.

    The Carpoint listed CR-V max payload number is higher than the Edmunds listed Escape max payload. Carpoint has the Escape's max payload listed higher than Edmunds. Therefore, comparing the two with Carpoint's numbers, the Escape is higher. Again, Edmunds does not list their number for the CR-V's max payload, so we cannot compare the two there.

    There's almost a 200 lb. difference between Edmunds and Carpoint for the Escape. I don't know who is right.

    mcdawgg,
    You're right, they do have the long term survey. Like CR they don't tell you how many people actually responded for each make. But it's all we have until the manufacturers release the "real" data. They know more exact numbers because they actually do the work. I don't really believe that the numbers they have are that much different.

    I noticed that Lincoln is pretty high on their list. My dad owns a Mercury, and the sales/service at the Lincoln/Merc dealer where he goes is excellent. They need to bleed some of that good service down to the Ford dealers. Some of them are pretty bad, and I've personally had one misdiagnose a potential problem before (not on the Escape). Luckily I took it to another one for a second opinion. Maybe if they improve their service, people won't have to keep going in for multiple fixes, and those JD numbers will drop a little. That's only one small brick that needs to be layed in their new effort to build a better Ford.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Its ok for Varmit to "repeat like a broken record" but not ok for Scape2...
    dg.. No I would not buy a CRV. The styling is ugly and reminds me of a big bug, kind of like a beetle.. And for another thing.. the attitude of some Honda owners just kills me.. the "I'm perfect" bull... is enough to drive anyone crazy. I own a Honda and mine has been back to the dealer for repairs and if you search the net you will find plenty of Honda owners who expected perfection and received something else. Honda hides its TSB's go take a look at www.alldata.com.
    AS for refinement and quality/fit and finish of materials in Escape Vs CRV these vehicles are both low cost SUV's. Don't kid yourself CRV owners that your interior has any better plastics or fabrics than an Escape...
    The V6 in my Escape purrs like a kitten and is in no way rough.
    Here we go again with 0-60 times. I notice you fail once again to mention 5 SPEED in the CRV..
  • dglozmandglozman Member Posts: 178
    so it's about styling and brand. But that how most of us choose cars! You have a problem with Accord, so you are skeptical about Honda. My first car was Mercury Sable, after that I said to myself that I'll never ever buy a Ford product including Mazda, Volvo, etc... Plus if you like a styling of a particular car (in your case its Escape, in mine CRV) you are trying to find advantages, regardless of what they are( like additional inch in space or additional .1 second in speed) just to justify your purchase, and trying to down play all negatives (in your case reliability or reputation of Ford products and noisiness, in mine spear wheel outside, small tires, back door opens the wrong way...) We are not going to convince each other that my car is better then yours and vise verse. You think you made a right choice, so am I.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    These threads are not about trying to convince the "opposition" that one vehicle is better than the other. When conducted in a civil manner they can be a great way to entertain and educate yourself about a vehicle you may be considering or may have passed on.

    For example: back in '99, I walked away from the Forester without a second thought. After "duking it out" with the Subie owners here at Edmunds, I now have a tremendous amount of respect for the little wagon.

    Scape2 - We don't mention the five speed because there's no doubt you'll do it for us. It's just another one of those things that the Escape lacks.
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    ...but before I get to that...

    -Escape shows a clear advantage in being able to stop over the CRV and the HOnda crowd plays the advantage down. 4 feet is a long distance when talking about stopping a vehicle, being able to avoid an accident, avoid a person, child or animal in your path.

    Scape, do you think about what you read and what people are saying before you snap right into your anti-Honda rhetoric? Nobody is saying it isn't better to stop 4 feet sooner. The point I'm trying to make is that at 15 MPH you should be able to steer clear of a person or animal. I'm down playing 4 feet because at that speed the likelyhood for severe damage or injury is minimal. (and as much as it grates on you I would make the same arguement if the Honda stopped 4 feet sooner...its 4 feet not 20) If you think 4 feet is that big of a deal than you have to start lauding over how much bigger the CRV interior is.

    -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,....

    OK, but I still stand by my original arguement many posts back that just because you can doesn't mean you should. The CRV and the ESCAPE are just plain the wrong vehicles for heavy towing. That arguement can be made on many levels. So yes, you have more towing ability...save somebody elses life and don't use it, because when you start rolling down hill with 3,500 lbs behind you I'm not counting on the Escape (or a CRV) to control that load well....

    -...and 40HP advantage over the cRv, and a 40ft/lbs of torque advantage over the CRV. Facts are facts, these are advantages.

    Apples....anybody remember something about apples???? Oh wait, you failed AGAIN to mention the V6 has ONLY 40 more HP. That's right, an extra 20 HP each from those 2 extra cylinders. So when comparing a bigger engine to a smaller one, the bigger one has more power. Everyone got that? I see you failed to mention again that if you compare the Ford 4 Cylnder to the Honda that the Ford comes out on the short end of the stick. But I suppose you would argue its only a few HP..

    -.. 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?

    Real world numbers: My best is 26.7 my worst is 20.3 MPG. Average on my CRV so far has been 24.9; what are the real numbers on the Escape?

    Varmint only does the "broken record" bit mocking you. He says that right in his posts..

    Now, back to the subject line....

    Varmint is right in that most everything we are arguing about is minor. We're quibbling over inches and seconds. Even before I owned a Honda I would have told somebody looking at both to go with Honda. Everyone has their own pecking order. I would recommend a Ford over a Kia or a Suzuki. We'll never convice you and you probably won't convince us.

    -you will find plenty of Honda owners who expected perfection and received something else

    Go figure, they wanted perfection and didn't get it. Honda's not perfect, they are darn good though. Honda isn't hiding TSB's either, if you want them you can pay for them...or are you just mad because you want something for free and aren't gonna get it?
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    freeber,
    The Escape's 2.0L I4 produces about 130 HP which is 30 HP lower than the 2.4L CR-V I4. The Escape's 3.0L V6 produces about 200 HP which is 40 HP higher than the CR-V. There's a difference of about 7 HP per .1L of displacement each way. I'd say the CR-V falls happily in the middle.

    I'm sure a few more ponies could be squeezed out of the CR-V's I4, but don't forget that the Duratec in the Escape is the same engine that produces 237 HP in the Jaguar S-Type. Ford is not pushing the engine to it's HP limits in the Escape. So far, they haven't had to I would guess.

    By the way, the Accord 3.0L V6 has almost identical power numbers. 200 HP and 195 lb/ft.

    Again, and for the last time, Honda's TSB's are still updated regularly on the NHTSA web site. No company posts the full text of their TSB's for free. If you want them, you have to pay for them.

    varmint,
    I agree. When I started on this forum, you would never have been able to read a positive point concerning the CR-V with my ID at the top. I have been enlightened somewhat, but the wife even says it still needs more power before we ever buy one. No regrets with the Escape. However, she will have no input when it's Mustang shopping time.
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    That was exactly my point, Scape keeps pointing out the "superior" 40 HP from the V6 and keeps failing to mention the the I4 is 30 HP short. I'm not a gear head, we've covered that much, but my understanding from reading is that you can slap an Integra Type R head on this 2.4 and have a whee of a time with all the ponies. I'm guessing the Ford 2.0 would need some modification too and that it's not just choked back.

    Thanks for the actual HP/displacement numbers. I was making the overly simplified 2 more cylinders/40 more HP arguement. Obviously the size of the cylinders is going to make a difference too, so your numbers are actually more telling.

    As far as the V6 from the Accord....I've seen engine bays packed so tight you couldn't see 8 inches down much less through to the ground. If Honda wanted a V6 in the CRV, they could do it. The amount of space in that engine bay is baffling. Well, obviously its there as part of the saftey system crush zones, so I'm sure a V6 would impact the saftey rating pretty well without a redesign.
  • canadatwocanadatwo Member Posts: 198
    wouldn't make any power until 5-6K rpm. Not very useful in a family hauler / gorcery getter.
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    It's not the Integra Type R engine, just the head. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I thought I had read somewhere that the 02' CRV's torque came from it's large displacement...OK I'm gonna stop talking now because I don't have a clue what I'm talking about when it comes to how engines work...

    Gas in this end, oil in that end....Got it.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I think we already went over the Integra engine in the CR-V thing a while back. It would be a pretty poor choice for the masses as canadatwo stated. I'm surprised I haven't seen any with those horrendous "coffee can" mufflers attached to make them sound like an RSX. I guess the teenie tuners just aren't in to the CR-V. Yet.

    Well, more displacement = a bigger explosion = more torque. That's just one way to increase it. 2.4L is pretty big for an I4, not the biggest, but probably pretty close.
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    ...had his V dropped as low as it can go, 19" wheels and the "coffee can" you speak of.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Why? I just don't understand why people do things like that. If I had the money to buy a specific vehicle and a bunch of mods, I'd opt to step up to a better vehicle without mods instead. Just the way I am I guess.

    He should have bought something lower to the ground to begin with. I bet that thing rides like Fred Flintstone's car now!
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    It actually looks fairly sharp but I bet it rides pretty rough. I'm sure it handles well on the street though.

    Everyone has a hobby I guess....
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I agree you will never convince me the CRV is "better" than the Escape. Lets compare our present vehicles then. I have an Escape with almost 12,000 miles on it. I have taken this vehicle on long trips loaded down with 4 bikes and gear, I averaged 24.7MPG with a V6. The Escape as been very reliable, responsive, comfortable and has suited my needs and met every expectation. Why is it so hard for Honda owners to understand there are Ford/Mazda owners out here that are completely satisfied with thier purchases? After owning an Accord now for 2 years I just don't see the huge reliability advantage. Its been in the shop 3x, my Escape 0x. Get out on the net there are plenty of Honda/Acura owners who are not satisfied and expected perfection but came up with just the opposite. I am not "anti Honda" as some may put it. Just get off your high horse, Honda/Acura is not as great as you are led to believe.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I am trying to understand your logic about breaking.. So, what I understand your saying is if you are traveling 15mph.. who drives 15MPH? maybe a school zone? you should be able to stear clear of anything in your way? huh? this is a 60-0 stop.. not a 15-0? Another thing is wouldn't you think the Escape would even stop sooner than a CRV at 30MPH, 40MPH, 27MPH, 22MPH whichever than the CRV? Braking is important, as I have said it can mean the difference in thousands of dollars in damage, death or injury..
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Just read on vtec.net about the Euro Accord coming over here as an Acura sedan. One of the engine will be a 2.4-liter I-4 producing 180hp. I'm assuming this is the same engine used in the CR-V, but tweaked a bit.
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    My point is that in a 60-0 stop, you aren't going 60 MPH in the last 4 feet. By the time your vehicle gets to the last 4 feet you are traveling MUCH slower, and the estimate given for arguements sake was 15 MPH. My point was that while you may have stopped 4 feet back, I should have control of my vehicle by that time and be traveling around 15 MPH.

    I'm not saying that will NEVER matter, I'm saying on the whole 4 feet isn't a huge difference. (Just like an extra inch isn't a HUGE difference in the interior)

    For reference, I had My V loaded with 3 adults, and infant, and all our gear and got 24.3 with the AC on. I'm gonna always say the V is better because I own one. I own one becasue the things that were important to me ARE better on the V. Just like the things that are important to YOU are better on the Escape.

    I'm not on a high horse. Honda/Acura are as great as I KNOW them to be. My opinions come from experience. Many years of growing up in a Honda family and many years of driving different domestics. Of all my Domestic vehicles, I had ONE that I thought was excellent. (86 Olds Cutlass Supreme) The rest were all average or below.

    I have no doubt you may be happy with your vehicle. Its obvious that you are. I still haven't found enough reasons to recommend an Escape over a CRV to somebody else though. (Unless I know they are going to be towing alot, but then I'd tell them to get something bigger anyhow....)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    still don't get your logic.. The Escape stops 4 feet shorter than your CRV, period, can't change that. Those four feet can make a huge difference in getting into an accident when going 15MPH, 28mph, 32mph or what ever speed you are going. An accident that may mean the difference between life and death for you or someone else.. When you are bringing an object that weighs about 3K lbs to a stop, 4 feet is quiet a distance..
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Just for clarification: If the rate of deceleration is fixed, then the stopping distance varies as the square of the initial speed.

    This means that if the difference in stopping distance between two vehicles is 4 feet at 60 miles per hour, then the difference in stopping distance for the same two vehicles starting at 30 miles per hour will be 1 foot - i.e. 1/4 = (1/2)2 of the difference in the 60 mph stopping distances. At 15 mph, the difference in stopping distance falls to about 3 inches.

    Of course, this works the other way at higher speed. At 80 mph, the difference grows to about 7 feet.

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Well...guess that's finally settled.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Tide.. But the Escape still stops better than the CRV..
    I'm also in other chats around the net.. Do any of you CRV folks get sarcasms about offroad ability? I'm in a hot debate with a Jeep Liberty owner who just won't fess up about how much offroading and the class of trails he or she uses?? This offroad ability stuff really cracks me up... For the most part the RAV4/CRV/Escape/VUE or any other car based SUV does just fine. I have had my EScape on logging access roads in the MT Hood national forest and its done just fine.. Anyhoo... just wanted to vent...
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    the CRV have the ability to switch off 4th gear for heavy loads or towing?
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    It's funny how you can point out that none of these car-based SUVs are meant to go off-road, yet you keep pointing out the Escape's 3500lb tow rating - as if any of these SUVs were meant to also tow.
  • daveghhdaveghh Member Posts: 495
    I think the car based SUV's do a great job off-roading. My friend had an old 1980 something toyota corrolla and we used to take that thing off roading, it was amazing how well that CAR did with front drive only! It went through mud, ripped through fields and drove over some small logs!

    I think the biggest thing for offroading are the tires! If you have lousy offroading tires on the best of the four wheelers it wont compete with a CRV or Escape with better tires.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    tidester,
    I see what you are getting at, but the rate of deceleration is in no way fixed at any time. With ABS handling the caliper tension, the rate will be different at all times and so will the measurements. Eventually it should average out though.

    There are many other factors as well. Like tire tread, heat, speedometer error (are you actually stopping from 60 mph?), etc..
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    ...but the rate of deceleration is in no way fixed at any time.

    Of course! I just wanted to point out that the difference in stopping distance between different vehicles is not the same for different starting speeds.

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    I agree the Escape stops faster. If stopping faster is the ONLY criteria you wish to use in deciding the better brakes then I agree the Escape stops faster. MY POINT was 4' isn't that much of a difference given the speed the V' will be traveling at that point. If the distance were 20', the V' would be traveling at a much higher rate of speed when your vehicle stopped and THEN I could say you have a MAJOR advantage. I'm suggesting the 4' arguement is just as valid as the 1" arguement. If you want to say 4' is a big deal, then you have to admit 1" more legroom is a big deal.

    Nice loaded question there too. By your own arguement you know the CRV doesn't tow large loads so the ability to switch off 4th gear is moot. We do have the ability to turn off overdrive though. (and I still maintain you shouldn't be towing 3500 lbs with ANY of these vehicles) I CAN ask a convict to hold onto my lifes savings. The convict is perfectly capable of doing that, but would you say its a good idea?

    Glad you asked about off roading. I took my V' off road a week ago. I would have to call it EXTREME logging roading. We crossed a small stream, all sorts of sand, off-camber stuff, HUGE water holes, lots of berms that large SUV's would have bottomed out on because of the height/pitch. Nobody got remotely close to stuck. I don't know if I'd go head to head with a Liberty in an off-road duel, but I bet our V's and Escapes can give them a pretty good run for the money. (lets remember they have a 4.0 Liter in that thing and dedicated 4WD..its small, but it's really not the same class in my opinion)
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    It obviously depends on what you are going to do with it. Sport fishers will tell you that sometimes it's more fun pulling in the big fish using only half your box and a rod that's too small. When you have every kind of bait, lure, and rod available, it takes the sport out of it.

    Off-roading can be the same way. How much fun would it be to take a Hummer down some rough logging roads? Not very. That machine wouldn't blink an eye. Driving one on the freeway is probably more challenging. However, taking a car-based ute down the same roads is fun because there's more of a challenge. Here in New England it isn't easy to find legitimate off-road trails. Forestry service roads, on the other hand, are quite plentiful.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    about 2700 - 3000 with my Escape and its done fine. I would feel a bit nervous about pushing the 3,500 lb limit myself.. but I would bet the Escape would pull it ok.
    This offroading ability stuff just gets me rolling with some of these reviews I read sometimes. I believe Honda/Ford/Mazda/Saturn/Toyota went in the right direction with car based, fully independent suspension mini-Suvs..
    Tide.. where did you get this formula from?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Yeah, Tidester - are you making this stuff up or what?

    :-)

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    You got me, Steve! I make this stuff up! ;-)

    Seriously, it's straightforward. With constant acceleration, the speed acquired (or lost) is just acceleration times time (v = a×t).

    The distance travelled (from or to a complete stop) is half the acceleration times the time squared. (d = 1/2a×t2).

    Now just replace t here with t = v/a from the first equation and you get the desired formula: d = v2/(2×a), i.e., stopping distance varies as the square of the speed.

    I'll leave the rest of the algebra as an exercise to the interested student! (Sorry - I couldn't resist! ;-)

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    If I recall from general chemistry, he's probably using some variant of the "root mean square speeds," where you're comparing rates of speeds, not just the speeds themselves.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    D'oh, too fast in answering posts about you, Tidester.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Ya gotta be QUICK around here! ;-)

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    first of all... I am an engineer and fully understand general physics equations.
    You have forgotten the many other factors that influence the stopping distances of a vehicle. Mass and friction to name a few. You have way oversimplified the issue. May have fooled some.. not me ;-)). I had thought you found this in some automotive spec sheet and would show me something more conclusive.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    I had thought you found this in some automotive spec sheet and would show me something more conclusive.

    I think the physics is conclusive and pretty obvious. Yes, there are factors left out but it doesn't change the conclusion.

    Let's look at a situation that will make it completely transparent. Suppose the stopping distances of two vehicles starting out at 60 miles per hour differ by 4 feet. Take the same two vehicles and let them start out at arbitrarily slow speeds. Now when they go to full braking, their respective stopping distances become arbitrarily short (since they were barely moving to begin with!)

    You must conclude that the difference in stopping distances tends toward zero. In other words, the difference in stopping distances depends on the starting speed. That was my only point and I am sure you don't mean to challenge that.

    The assumption of constant deceleration in my previous post was strictly for illustrative purposes.

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • freeberfreeber Member Posts: 116
    I think even if you want to get into the the coefficient of friction level of the arguement you have to agree that the arguement is sound. He's not trying to buffalo anybody. The vehicle doesn't magically go from 60 to 0, it decellerates.

    If you want to through in every detailed equation to compensate for friction, mass, the earth rotation, and the butterfly effect you will still end up with the same conclusion.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    scape- Just curious...what kind of engineer are you?
  • daveghhdaveghh Member Posts: 495
    I am also an engineer, I am actually in the midst of getting my masters in environmental engineering after completing an undergraduate degree in mathematics and civil engineering and I have to say that Tidester pretty much hit the stopping thing on the nail!

    Scape, of course there is the friction factor and a whole bunch of other outside sources that can vary stopping, BUT (for example regarding the friction factor) you need to assume both cars have the same friction in the system. Such as the same type of rubber and road, you know, eliminating variables so an accurate comparison can be made.
  • hislanderhislander Member Posts: 67
    I agreed with the host that his argument is absolutely valid with assumption that decellaration is constant during the course of traveling. Friction and mass don't have to be the same for both vehicles since they are part of the equation ( Second Newton Law: F = m*a )....
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    an electronics engineer. I work with robotics/PLC's/ along with other aspects of automated manufacturing. I work in the semi-conductor industry.
    This whole issue has been way over simplified. There are many factors that are not being included in this equation.
    Dave - if you are the brilliant person you claim you are you above anyone should know this. Beings you own a CRV you are of course going to side with Tide/Steve on this issue. No way are you going to convince anyone who has had even 1 year of physics this is going to fly. Even Tide admits "there are factors left out" How can this be conclusive when there are factors left out that could change the outcome??
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Sorry, I don't do math :-)

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Beings you own a CRV you are of course going to side with Tide/Steve on this issue.

    Just to be clear, neither Steve nor I are taking sides. I offered a perspective I had hoped would bring some clarity to the specific issue of braking. Anyone is free to accept, reject or ignore it.

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • daveghhdaveghh Member Posts: 495
    I agree with you that their are other factors involved and it is not a simple as tidester made it. But.....

    The fact is, those equations model the escape and CRV well because they have similar masses, similar aerodynamics, etc... THAT in CONJUNCTION with their only being a 4 foot difference at 60 mph as the velocity is lowered the numbers steve provided actually are going to be close to what they really are. Not exactly the right number, but for all intensive purposes it suits the argument we are having very well.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Nope, the only numbers I've posted in the last few weeks were my 67,000k miles on my Nissan. And I got that wrong too, lol.

    Sure are a lot of shades of gray and other factors being tossed around. I thought you engineer types only saw things in black and white :-)

    I wonder how much farther it'd take a CR-V to stop if they stuck a heavier 6 (V, H or I, I don't care ) in it?

    How about a link to the June update of our long-term road test of the Tribute (yes, it mentions brakes, LOL).

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • bessbess Member Posts: 972
    Geez, I thought we drove the honda hiding tsb's issue into the ground. Ya'll on this braking have taken it to a new extreme..
    Since it's gone this far, I'll go ahead and contribute too..
    From a 'safety' point of view, I doubt that only 4 feet difference would be that drastic.. In other words, I doubt there would be personal injuries on the CRV as a result of hitting something that Escape was able to stop in time for.

    But, there would be damages to be repaired to the CRV (and the vehicle it hit).
    So no matter how you look at it, there is an advantage to the Escape in this area..
  • daveghhdaveghh Member Posts: 495
    Bess.... Well put, I have to agree with you on that one.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    FWIW: To approximate your speed x feet short of your full stopping distance, divide the former by the latter, take the square root and multiply by your starting speed (constant deceleration model!)

    So, if your stopping distance is, say, 225 feet from 60 mph, then your speed 4 feet shy of the full stopping distance will be about 8 miles per hour.

    I'll leave it to others to decide whether it is a safety concern.

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
  • npaladin2000npaladin2000 Member Posts: 593
    Someone mentioned tires and friction have a big impact on stopping power, and then they ASSUMED that they have similar tires. But who's to say?

    IMHO, tires would also have a major effect on acceleration and 0-60 times, am I right? (I know, you're thinking "Dear GOD, he's NOT dredging THAT up again, is he?")

    So what tires do these two suckers come with, anyway?
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Oh, gawd! He's not dredging that up again is he?? ;-)

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories
Sign In or Register to comment.