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
Power is what I needed and wanted in an SUV. V6's are going to deliver the torque/HP curve most are looking for when towing/hauling. 4cyl engines just won't deliver. They may deliver but the MPG will be just as bad as a V6! Plus you will have to rev the heck out of the 4cyl in order to achieve the torque you want.
Why do you think Suzuki, Jeep, Saturn, Hyundia, Ford/Mazda came out with the V6? Consumers want them.. Power does matter.....
For Example:
The 2002 Ford Explorer can tow up to 5940 pounds with the 4.0liter V6. If you put the V8 in the same vehicle, it can tow up to 7300 pounds.
This info. came from Ford's Literature.
I just wanted to clarify that a more powerful does not always mean better towing. In the case of the CR-V, it's not the engine that is responsible for the low towing rating. It's the Civic-based chassis.
Back to old business... I went out and purchased the TruckTrend issue that has the comparison between the CR-V and Escape (along with a RAV4 and LR Freelander). They give good data on acceleration, which should help with the discussions in this thread.
First, a correction. The post in the other thread (where originally I got the information from) was incorrect. The Escape ran to 60 mph in an even 9 seconds, not 9.1 as I was told. The CR-V's score of 8.93 was correct.
One of the reveiwers commented on the CR-V's engine saying, "It thinks it's a V6". Universally, they agreed that it was much smoother than the Ford's Duratec.
Looking at the acceleration measurements overall, it looks like the Ford was by far the fastest except between 50 and 60 mph. The Ford had the faster time to 30, 40, and 50 mph. It was between 50 and 60 that the CR-V made up for a significant deficit and passed the Escape. IIRC, the Escape took almost 5 seconds to go from 50 to 60.
If this 0-60 sprint were conducted side by side like a drag race, the Ford would've looked like it was going to blow the doors off the CR-V. Then, in the last few seconds of the race, the CR-V would've made a startling comeback. If any other magazines can confirm this, then I suspect that the competitive times for the CR-V can be attributed solely to gearing.
My guess is the Ford's 3rd gear is high to make the transition to the high fourth gear used for highway cruising. The reviewers comments about the Ford frequently dropping out of OD on the highway seem consistent with that idea.
The trouble with these statements is that the CR-V's torque curve probably is flatter than the Escape's. We also know that peak power is achieved at a significantly lower RPM than the Duratec V6. IIRC, the Escape's peak torque output is almost 2,000 rpms higher than the CR-V's peak at 3,600 rpms.
The difference that you are trying to get at is that the Escape offers more torque regardless of how or when it is delivered. For example, The CR-V makes 90% of peak torque at 2,250 rpms. This is about 145 lbs-ft. At 2,250 rpms, the Escape may only be making 75% of peak output. But that is still 147 lbs-ft. I haven't found a Ford Torque curve, so those numbers are just an educated guess.
Bottom line: I agree with you about there being more power in the Ford V6, but I don't agree with regard to the torque and HP curves. I also wouldn't make the same assumption about all the other V6s when compared to the Honda I4.
Think about it... the Ford is quicker off the line... faster to 30, to 40, to 50... at this point it's been travelling at a greater rate of speed than the CR-V for several seconds and probably has a couple car lengths lead. Then the CR-V puts on a (relative) burst of speed and achieves 60 mph a tenth of a second (or so) before the Escape. Now it is starting to gain on the Ford, BUT IT IS STILL BEHIND IT.
The next question, for the ultimate bragging rights, is: which is faster through the quarter mile?? Answer... it doesn't really matter. Both are sufficiently quick for most people's needs. Let each person make their decision based on their own personal preferences.
IIRC, the Ford is faster through the 1/4 mile. Presumably because the Ford's engine has the time to catch up with the higher gearing and it resumes acceleration at the higher rate.
I never called it a "conspiracy". I just don't understand how Honda owners can say its ok to withhold information?? How can you make a good choice if you don't have the information, better yet lopsided information. Why is it ok for HOnda to with hold information?
Varmit, my friend is not a car dealer, he is the manager of the dealership, a big difference. All the salespeople work for him. I asked him for a list of TSB's/recalls for the CRV and he would not give them to me! I asked what he was hiding and his explanation was "Honda does not like to give this information out freely".. What the??!!
with a name like "hondaman" sounds like a story to me...
Honda owners boast aad base the advantage of the CRV on reliability. Yet, when you go searching for data its hidden. The only thing you get is my cousin had a Honda that went a jizzlion miles with no oil change.. yada, yada, yada.. This may be the only advantage the CRV has over the Escape.. but we will never truely know.. Otherwise the Escape will plain out power, out manuver, out accelerate, out tow, out pull a CRV...
I don't know why this is a big deal, both vehicles perform well. Although in my opinion the Escape beats the CRV in the driveability column, because of it's more useful towing ability. Bottom line here is most people looking at these vehicles don't care too much about speed if they did they'd be looking at a WRX Wagon. A wagon that beats the CRV in towing, has lots of cargo room, and still gets great mileage. Not too mention it's extremely fast!
Almost settled on the Forester,
dhd
Earlier in this topic, I tried to post a charted HP and torque graph, but Webshots isn't allowing access at this time. I created the chart based on one provided by Honda. The one that Honda published shows torque and as separate units, but the RPM band is so tight (increments of 2,000) the visual presentation is deceptive.
http://osx.wieck.com/pv/HON/2001/09/01/HON2001090147529_pv.jpg
The flat torque curve is made possible with the use of VTEC. It allows the engine to breathe better at both high and low RPMs. A common mistake (one that I myself made) is to assume that it only benefits the top end of the RPM band. The low RPM cam profiles allow the engine to build a decent amount of torque. The high profile cams kick in to hold onto that torque in the higher range.
Until someone provides a torque graph for the Escape, I can only guess at how the power is distributed across the band. It's got to start pretty high (above 140 I'm sure) and gradually build toward it's peak at 5600 RPMs. The fact that peak HP is only 1,000 RPMs higher means that the torque drops like a cliff. That's not really a problem for an engine that isn't going to spend a lot of time at high speeds.
The 2002 CR-V is expected to earn even better scores. It uses the same dual pretentioned seat belts first seen in the new Civic and shares the same G-con structural design. The Civic has already earned top scores in the crash tests. Honda has earned every score that they have predicted since their new testing facility went on-line a few years ago.
5-Star NCAP frontal impact rating for driver and passenger
5-star SINCAP side impact rating for driver and passenger
"Good" IIHS rating for front offset impact
In short, the NHTSA crash tests are not the ones that I, for one, go by. So if anyone has any information on the Insurance ones, or if anyone knows about their schedule for doing the new CR-V, please let me know. Thanks!!
dhd
The fact is that all these tests combined represent a very tiny percentage of the total range of accidents that cause death or life-changing injuries. I can understand putting more weight on one than the other, but paying heed to only one is a bad idea. JM2C
Regardless, I have not seen the IIHS crash test schedule. Given that the CR-V is a hot selling model, I doubt that it will take long. As noted above, Honda's internal testing has proven reliable so far, but I wouldn't blame anyone for waiting to see the results confirmed.
Oh well I'm ready when you are, I've still got those 36 reasons why the Aztek is better than the CRV and Highlander. Next time you post I'll post them.
corey, do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is?
I was just wondering what happened to him I didn't want him running off.
Lets see Escape vs. CRV.....
Reliability issues aside Escape.
If I were buying for myself neither.
But if I had to pick I'll take the Civic Wagon.
Honda has already done their own crash tests which I understand are even harsher than the NHTSA tests. They fully expect five star ratings.
They had the same expectations for the 2001 Civics and they were correct.
http://www.statefarm.com/media/release/discount.htm
http://www.statefarm.com/media/release/list1.pdf
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Many folks mistakenly think that VTEC and other variable valve systems only work at high rpms. Thats not true. VTEC allows the engine to breathe better at high and low rpm.
During low rpm performance, the engine uses less agressive breathing apparatus. This gives the engine a smooth idle and maximizes torque at low rpms.
When the engine reaches higher speeds (higher rpms), the VTEC system changes how the engine breathes. The demand for more air at faster speeds is met by changing how long the valves are open and how wide they are open. So the engine can now suck in more air and maintain the torque that was built during low rpms.
Honda has also added VTC, which controls the degree of overlap between the opneing of the valves. For a very short time, both the intake and exhaust valves are open. A low rpm, this is bad. At higher rpm, the engine can make good use of the wide opening and the overlap isnt a problem.
That doesnt exactly answer your question, though. What I think you wanted to ask was, maybe the [high rpm] VTEC kicked in? The answer is, yes. It kicks in when the engine reaches a specific rpm.
During 0-60 tests, they are running the cars full tilt and shifting at redline. So the high rpm valve dance probably started when the car reached @ 4,000 rpms. When they shifted from 1st to 2nd at redline, the engine speed probably dropped to somewhere between 4-5K rpms. So the high rpm valve opening and timing was still in effect. Theyd have to shift to 3rd to reach 60 mph without going over redline, which would work pretty much the same way. So the engine was probably running on low rpm valve settings for the first few seconds. Then it was using the more agressive settings for the rest of the test.
For more info, try these links.
Wieck news. Click on powertrain.
VTEC for both the CR-V and RSX.
Beatfarmer - You want 5 speed or automatic? I haven't found another mass-production vehicle with a lower first gear than the 5 speed CR-V. It's almost as low as Lo1 on some trucks fitted with a dual transfer case. These are for the 2nd generation CR-V. The gearing on the 1st gen was actually lower.
Ratios:
1st gear 3.533
2nd gear 1.880
3rd gear 1.212
4th gear .0921
5th gear .0738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive Ratio 4.765
Ratios:
1st gear 2.684
2nd gear 1.535
3rd gear 0.974
4th gear 0.638
Reverse 2.000
Final Drive Ratio 4.438
The car like 5sp's drivin by a competent driver will always out perform automatic trannys if the engines are similar.. (normal torque converter slippage and tranny internals are less efficient than a manual tranny).
In this case, its close because of the larger engine in the Escape helps to overcome some of the dis-advantage it has with the auto tranny.
It is also true that this topic was started when the CR-V was clocked faster than the Escape. I just find that same ole argument gets boring after a while, so I've been hoping the conversation would drift onto something a bit more worthy of debate.
I also have a manager friend at a Honda dealership. We took out a 5spd CRV and did our own little test on a deserted backroad. We did it at least 5 times 0-60 and the Escape won everytime.. I too would like to see more tests with automatics this time. You said its already been done and the CRV won in the automatic arena? What magazine? what month?
Gearing does play a role I agree.. But when the Escspa has 24 valves, 200HP/201ft/lbs of torque vs 16v 160HP/160ft/lbs of torque it just doesn't add up?? The CRV has about a 200-300LB weight advantage in its automatic option, probably more with a 5spd.. Does this small weight advantage matter?
I hope to see more comparisons.....
for it's airy interior feel plus it's fit and finish,plus it's stellar reputation for reliabity.
Granted this new model is not proven.If you look back as far as 1997 the CRV which was new then
had a perfect record so I expect the new CRV to be as good.Honda has always done it's homework before releasing a vehicle for sale.
The CR-V ran 0-60 in 8.93 seconds. IIRC, the Escape was timed at 9.1 seconds. Hardly a significant difference if you ask me. I agree that we need to see more tests, but I do think this shows that the auto CR-V is no slouch.
FWIW, the Freelander was the slowest. The RAV4 with the 5 speed was the fastest to 60mph at 8.9 even.
Gearing is the most significant element. I would guess that weight is the next most important. Though the new CR-V is slightly heavier than the old model and is problably within 100 lbs of the Escape.
I also suspect drivetrain efficiency. All this talk about horsepower and torque is done with numbers measured at the flywheel. How much of that power actually gets to the wheels? Honda doesn't make the best transmissions in regard to smooth shifts or even reliability, but they are efficient. Most cars lose between 10-20% of their engine's power due to friction losses in the drivetrain. I'm guessing that the Honda is closer to the low end of the scale than the Ford. Of course, the only to prove that is to get these cars on a dyno...
I think the Escape is a really attractive vehicle on the outside but is lacking features on the inside. Also Honda has a far superior reputation so I ended up with the new '02 crv! Its a great vehicle and I think it is better all around. I do think the crv is a bit "diiferent" looking, but I must say it has really grown on me..
As for it's effect on speeds, that is also up for debate. The drag on a car doesn't become overly signficant until you reach higher speeds. I'd guess that it isn't a big deal until you reach about 50mph. By then, the "race" is half-way over.
I thought the arguement over which is quicker died back in January.
To quote from Varmit: "Looking at the acceleration measurements overall, it looks like the Ford was by far the fastest except between 50 and 60 mph. The Ford had the faster time to 30, 40, and 50 mph. It was between 50 and 60 that the CR-V made up for a significant deficit and passed the Escape (my note: passed for SPEED not DISTANCE). IIRC, the Escape took almost 5 seconds to go from 50 to 60."
Remember these are times to SPEED not DISTANCE. To quote from "me": "Just because the CR-V posted a (slightly) quicker 0-60 time does NOT mean that it would win a "drag race" against an Escape.
"Think about it... the Ford is quicker off the line... faster to 30, to 40, to 50... at this point it's been travelling at a greater rate of speed than the CR-V for several seconds and probably has a couple car lengths lead. Then the CR-V puts on a (relative) burst of speed and achieves 60 mph a tenth of a second (or so) before the Escape. Now it is starting to gain on the Ford, BUT IT IS STILL BEHIND IT."
In reality, I think it's probably too close to call. Both vehicles are sufficiently quick for most purposes. Variations between individual cars of either make could easily change times by a couple of tenths. It comes down to which car best meets your personal preferences.
If it was my money, given the choice between the CRV and the Escape... I would by a Forester. But that is just MY preference.
-james
I would hate to try to pass a car on a two lane road with 3 passengers and the AC on!
" ... plus it's stellar reputation for reliabity"
Over 100,000 98' and 99 model year CRV's recalled.
6744 2002 model year CRV's recalled...
------------
Although there were 5 different recalls for 2001 Escapes, the total number of units affected was
only around 60761.. (no recalls for 2002 Escapes as of yet).
--------------
I don't consider Honda as having any better of a quality reputation for its truck family than Ford.. More people have had to bring their CRV's in for recall work than those with Escapes. And this doesn't even take into account that there were alot more Escapes sold early in its life compared to the CRV..
Bess - Maybe the fact that the CR-V has been rated as the most reliable SUV on the American market for two years has something to do with it. One of those years, it was the most reliable vehicle in any class. Meanwhile, the Escape is ranked as the absolute worst SUV. Or maybe it was the quality awards that the CR-V won....
As for sales, the CR-V sold 524,661 units from 2/97 to 10/01 in the US market alone. Earlier in this thread, I was told that the 4 cyl CR-V would never surpass the Escape in sales. The very next day, the figures for December were published and the CR-V was ahead of the Escape. Then, when January sales figures were released, the CR-V had widened its lead. It was selling more units than both the Escape and Tribute combined. Since it's introduction, Honda has sold more than 50,000 units of the '02 CR-V.
Dunno what the Escape did in its first few months, but I think it's safe to say that the Honda is doing just fine.
With the internet and more information changing hands the "stellar reliability" of Honda is waning. My wifes Accord... in the shop 3x so far.. she still loves the car though...
We need to have more testing on this acceleration issue... drag is a good point.. What about HP/torque curves?
The new CRV should have come with a V6 as an option along with 16" wheels. Those tiny wheels look funny in my opinion...
How are the plastics more quality on a CRV than an Escape?? is it because of the Honda name?? I parked these two side by side and the plastic quality in both is the same....
But, on the other hand, saying that there is no difference at all is underrating the company. Every year surveys and statisitcs show that the Japanese and most Europeans are ahead of the US manufacturers in quality and reliability. The gap isn't as big as it was ten years ago, but there is still a significant difference.
Regardless, now we're talking about entire product lines. I don't see how information (especially anecdotal stories) about Accords, Civics, Fairmonts, Mustangs, or any other car has anything to do with the Escape and CR-V.
Right now, we know where the Escape ranks on the only large scale reliability survey. Right at the bottom. We don't know about the new CR-V, because there isn't enough data. Will it be the best on the market? No, I highly doubt it. I'm sure it will have the usual first year bugs that any other vehicle will have. But the vehicle and the plant where it is manufactured has the best track record in the industry. Even if it only scores in the "average" range, that's way better than the Escape.
Scape2 - I posted info about the HP and torque curves a while back. I don't think we ever found one for the Ford.
"I would hate to try to pass a car on a two lane road with 3 passengers and the AC on!"
Been there, Done that, No problem.
Honda and Acura, Toyota and Lexus consistently score better in reliability than American manufacturers. I've owned Toyotas, a Honda, a Subaru, a Ford manufactured Mazda truck, and a Ford Mustang. Never, NEVER, will I buy another Ford -- never. Fords are cheaply made and are a slow heart-break in the making -- bad plastic and electrical problems one after another. Toyota, Honda and Subaru have proven to be consistently superior.
- electrical problem causing lighting (headlights and tail lights), windshield wipers, and other electrical components to suddenly stop working..(100k+ vehicles affected)
- seatbelt problems which could leave the occupant unrestrained in an accident. (6700 vehicles affected)
I also agree that the Ford recalls were for serious problems as well..
It is your opinion that the Honda's have much better quality than Ford, and you are entitled to your opinion.. To play down all the CRV recalls as 'not serious' while calling all the Escape recalls as 'serious' shows me that your willing overlook facts if they don't support your opinion..
I've seen many magazines and publications (like Edmunds) do the same thing.. Lets look at Edmunds for example:
"Our long-term Odyssey certainly lived up to our expectations for Honda reliability.
...
We had three recalls performed, but all were minor and addressed in short order. Additionally, on one occasion while the van was residing in Detroit, the rear hatch wouldn't open. This was repaired by a dealership the same afternoon and covered by the 3-year/36,000-mile basic warranty. The front brake pads were replaced at 23,000 miles. And the rear window developed a rattle near the end of our lease. That's it."
6 problems requiring dealer attention in less than 50k miles?