CR-V vs Escape

corynat

Hondaman - He just means that American Honda contradicts itself. Although, Honda builds a large number of their cars here, so I do not think it really applies. My only issue with Japanese cars is the way other countries cars are squeezed out over there.

I did not see that there was a limitation to the list of complaints. Should have looked closer.

The majority of folks that get either of these cars will wind up pleased, I would think. I also agree with you about the effect foreign cars have had on the American companies. It has forced them to a higher level. I hope they keep improving.

hondaman01

You seem like someone that is objective and I like that.

Honda and other foreign companies have factories in North America because that is the law. In order for them to sell cars here they must employ people. I agree fully as it would not be right to have them build somewhere else and sell here. I am confused as to how scape says they contradict themselves and would like to know his thoughts on that one.

Yeah.....if it wasn't for them coming over here and basically forcing us to understand how to build a decent car that will last and be reliable, I may be driving an Impala right now! Ugggh!

Sorry, I was not totally right about the numbers of complaints. It said due to the large numbers of consumer complaints, summary data was not included in the description. Either way it says "large number"

tidester

Not a problem! :-)

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

baggs32

Are we back on this Ford vs. Honda thing again?!

hondaman,
"Do you really want to haul your 2 kids in a vehicle that has placed last 2 years in a row? Or stalls many times? I don't!"

You don't? They why are you driving one that placed last for four years straight? Could it be because you really really liked the vehicle and didn't think about that stuff at the time?

"Too much beer is not good for you and neither is too much injury from a slow speed accident."

A 40 mph crash into a stationary object is not a slow speed crash.

"alcohol is controlled by ourselves whereas accidents are mostly caused by fools not paying attention and in most cases, cannot be avoided......so yes, these tests are VERY important."

So not paying attention at the wheel is not caused by one's own self?

Well if it's not, then my occasional desire to drink a few beers isn't my fault either. It's those humorous commercials with the hockey playing bear (Canada does produce some fine beer I must say) and pretty girls on the billboards that make me do it. It's unavoidable if you ask me.

By the way, if the CR-V would stop a little faster most of those accidents would be avoided. No wonder they had to up it's test scores!

(Sorry, I just had to.)

corynat,
I don't think Ford can afford to pay MT off right now. Or maybe that is why they are strapped for cash? Hmmmm....

baggs32

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-07-30-bmw-recall_x.htm

And you guys think the Escape has problems? What is that, like the fifteenth recall for the X5 in three years?

varmint

Let's get a few things straight.

The IIHS does not test vehicles repeatedly, unless there is a major design change. When the IIHS lists crash data for the 1998-2001 models, they are talking about one crash that applies to any unit produced for those model years. For example, the test for the 1997-2001 CR-V was conducted in 1999 using a 1999 CR-V (or maybe it was a '98 model). Since there were no significant safety-related changes to the CR-V, the same data is used for the whole range. The same applies to the Escape/Tribute.

Ergo... These remarks about one or the other car failing "repeatedly" or "several years in a row" are bogus. In most cases, the vehicle is tested once.

On a related subject, we are discussing current model offerings. Whether or not Hondaman feels safe in an old CR-V isn't an issue. At least, not an important one for this discussion. I find it amusing that Escape fans want us to accept that one year old recalls are a thing of the past, but they want to discuss a generation of the CR-V designed 7-8 years ago. This is a vehicle that is no longer on sale as a new car! Let's stay away from the double standards, folks.

baggs32

"Ergo... These remarks about one or the other car failing "repeatedly" or "several years in a row" are bogus. In most cases, the vehicle is tested once."

I started to type something very similar but I thought it was a given if you actually have read what the IIHS has to say about their tests.

varmint,
"On a related subject, we are discussing current model offerings."

I'm sorry, is your last name Edmunds? We now have to talk about what you want us to talk about? The thread is titled "CR-V vs Escape". I ask again, where do you see the model year designation? Is there some kind of rule that I forgot to read? You own an older CR-V. Why don't you want to discuss what you own vs the Escape?

The question was:
"Do you really want to haul your 2 kids in a vehicle that has placed last 2 years in a row?"

Obviously the test scores did not matter to me that much because I bought the vehicle regardless.
All I did was bounce the same question back to hondaman (as I have done in the past) regarding the vehicle he drives. He also stated that safety, reliability, etc. were very important in his purchase decision. If safety was such a big factor, why then did he buy a vehicle that received a sub-par test score? I know why I did.

1997-2001 model owners can harp on all this safety bruehaha all they want. If it really means that much to them why are they still driving a vehicle that scored the same as the so-called "death trap" Escape?

Let's hope none of us crash into each other on the road, the Earth may implode or something!

Good grief.

beatfarmer

I don't think I'd name a kid that.

Bought me a used 99 Suburban. Traded in the S-10 and kept the CR-V. Man that sucker is big.

Hey Baggs, funny thing is, back in '99 the crash scores were not sub par, but par. But based on today's crop of minis, it looks sub par in comparison.

Still, I wouldn't call either the previous gen 'V or the Escape a death trap.

Man, life would be scary if your "anti" self were plying the roads and there was a stray chance you could hit each other.

baggs32

"Hey Baggs, funny thing is, back in '99 the crash scores were not sub par, but par. But based on today's crop of minis, it looks sub par in comparison."

It seems that some people aren't quite grasping that notion yet.

"Still, I wouldn't call either the previous gen 'V or the Escape a death trap."

Exactly.

So if you hit your anti-self and no one was around, would it make a sound?

bess

You quote:
"it is important to have reliability and safety as a major factor to our decisions"

The Escape is a very reliable and safe vehicle. Are there some vehicles that score better in various tests? yes..
However, there are vehicles that score better than the CRV, (Lexus, Lincolns, Accords, Volvos, etc) .. So using your own logic why did you choose an unsafe vehicle like the CRV?

I can only guess that you feel that the CRV is 'safe', (even your 2001 CRV), which I do share your opinion that these vehicles are safe as well.

hondaman01

The old CRV (like I have) has proven to me that being hit from behind at 30mph is a lot stronger than a new Explorer! My CRV has 5 stars in all areas except one so it is pretty good but never as good as it is now. I chose this vehicle because I wanted all the bells and whistles but not at the new cars price.

The Escape also has a major fault with stalling that could lead to a big problem if you are going down hill at 60mph!

At the time of its design (probably around 95) it was following data that was available for that period before the Gov't raised the bar on these type of things. When the Escape was designed around 1999-2000, safety issues were quite important and they can barely match the model I have along with some pretty big reliability issues that could combine together.

I feel very safe especially after having my accident but I did question this when I bought it in January and researched enough without ever hearing any questions about its safety. I realised that it was not as strong as the new model but all reviews said it was very safe and built solid and now I have physical proof of that! As varmint said, this test was conducted somewhere in 1999 or so and was compared to new models. The Escape IS a new model and has suffered right out of the box with this and reliability issues.

Insurance costs of the CRV (1997-2001)are quite low so I am sure this means that it is solid.

http://cartalk.cars.com/ct/car-report/CarReportCrashTest.jsp?index=0

hondaman01

I am not sure if the last link worked but this one should. I am not worried in the least!

http://cartalk.cars.com/ct/car-report/CarReportResults.jsp?makes_pd=Honda&year=1999&models_pd=CR-V

npaladin2000

"Honda and other foreign companies have factories in North America because that is the law. In order for them to sell cars here they must employ people. I agree fully as it would not be right to have them build somewhere else and sell here. I am confused as to how scape says they contradict themselves and would like to know his thoughts on that one."

If foreign companies have to build their cars in the US to sell them, then where's Kia's factory? Or VW's? BMW's? Daewoo?

Toyota and Honda DO have factories here, but guess what happens to the cars they build in those US factories? They get shipped to Japan and sold there. Due to the wierdness of international currencies, it's usually cheaper for them to build a car in the US and ship it home to sell than it is to sell them where they're built. So we get the ones built in Japan, and the Japanese get the Japanese cars that are built in the USA.

varmint

Baggs - Okay let's put the whole thing into perspective then. If you want to talk about the choices that buyers of the older gen Honda made, then lets do that...

<<shimmering screen and harp music>>

In April 1999, I chose the Honda CR-V over the Escape because the Escape didn't exist. The CR-V was better at everything by default. That's pretty much it. End of story.

<<back to present day>>

Now, we have a CR-V and Escape designed and released within a little over a year of one another. They are direct competitors in the same class, the same market, at the same point in history. They target the same buyers, who have the same criteria, and they shop using the same sources of information.

In short, the opponent in the ring is a 2002 CR-V. If you don't think that the Escape can handle the competition, then send Ford back to the drawing board to come back in 3 or 4 years with a better product. Trying to compare the Escape with an old design like the prior gen CR-V just shows how far behind Ford is with the Escape.

whotheman

Escape kicks A$#, so I'm mystified by people trying to portray the CR-V as the #1 Small SUV when the Escape always wins direct comparos (Car&Driver in 2000 - CR-V took fifth place, Motor Trend this Month, AMI in 2001, Motorweek Driver's Choice 2001, Edmunds.com Editors choice 2001,2002).

Until the CR-V grows a look other than a pup tent, or gives birth to two more cylinders, the CR-V is not competitive for Best in class with the V6 Escape/Tribute.

Don't take my word for it. Take every journalists in the country's!

varmint

Ummm... No. So far the 2002 CR-V "Kicks a dollar and lbs."

varmint Aug 1, 2002 2:53pm

Take my word for it, or do some research.

whotheman

You'd see the extensive research I've done! Name one time the CR-V beat the Escape. In anything! I won't take your word for it.

viclr33

They get shipped to Japan and sold there. Due to the wierdness of international currencies, it's usually cheaper for them to build a car in the US and ship it home to sell than it is to sell them where they're built. So we get the ones built in Japan, and the Japanese get the Japanese cars that are built in the USA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is that true? just wondering, because to my knowledge, id think making cars in your place and selling them to the locals would be cheaper than importing the same stuff from other peoples place...

honest question... just wondering what companies do this that all...

npaladin2000

It's partially the vagaries of the international market, and it's also partially the higher quality levels. Apparently, American workers build japanese cars better than Japanese workers do.

I dunno if Americans build American cars better...most American cars are built in Mexico

varmint

Whotheman - Click... on... the... link...

I gave you three current tests. Not ones done with the 1st Gen CR-V, which is pretty much all you listed.

Viclr33 - It depends. I cannot verify that quote from earlier, as I don't know the dollar amounts behind the logistics. However, it could be true. In Japan, raw materials are in short supply. That makes them expensive. The savings on raw materials here in the US could be greater than the cost of shipping the finished product. That's just one possibility.

diploid

"Name one time the CR-V beat the Escape. In anything!"

Did we skip over the posts that show the crash test results?

I also noticed that you referenced C&D. But you left out the newer issues, you know, the one where 3 Hondas placed into the "5 Best" trucks list, with the CR-V representing the small SUV segment.

scape2

actually do a side by side comparison? I don't see any stats or data for the Escape? pics? ect..???

varmint

Scape2 - Yes, they did. They give more detail and better pics in hard copy. It's the July 2002 issue, pages 96-103. They included the 2002 CR-V, Escape, Freelander, and new Forester. Oddly enough, due to its length, the VUE was considered a mid-size.

varmint

Baggs - I found the TT article I referenced earlier. Here's what they had to say about the Escape's AWD system.

"Called Control Trac II, Ford's system biases drive to the front wheels on dry pavement and sends power to the rear wheels when a difference in speed is sensed in the transfer-case's viscous coupling (a closed, liquid filled box full of speed-differentiating friction plates). Feel is subtle, practically invisible, but slow to react"

Hope that clears up the difference between smoothness and reaction time.

scape2

Every thought this is why they have the switch on the Escape so you can manually put it into 4wd? This is a nice option instead of waiting for your vehicle to slip in order to have 4wd..
Answering 0-60 times..
First of all the 0-60 times you are from a 5spd CRV NOT an automatic. With a 5spd you can redline (and you have to in order to achieve these numbers) the 2.4 through each gear. With the automatic found in the v6 Escape you cannot redline. Gearing also plays a role here, this is why the Escape can tow upto 3,500 lbs and the CRV cannot. Tire size, the Escape has P235 the CRV has P205 tires.
Parked right next to a new 2002 CRV at the gym yesterday. It was a dark brown color. In noway does the CRv have more gound clearance than the Escape. Its so obvious when you park these two vehicles side by side and take a peak under.. I sure wish Edmunds would change it from 7.8 to 8.5 like its supposed to be.

hondaman01

Scape your 0-60 times for a CRV are correct for the manual but why is it only a little more than a half second off with the auto? Gearing or not, that is not the only reason. The tourque comes on earlier than the Escape and that is definately a major factor as well. I am sure than varmint can give you more details on the rpm's as I do not have them. What does ground clearance have to do with a car based 4x4 anyways!!!! Big deal! You want ground clearence.....get a Hummer!

I was away for two days with the family and we stopped in a Honda dealer and they wanted to sell me a new 2002 model and take mine with only an extra 1500$!!!!! I am stunned as I have only had mine for 8 months. He told me that they were desperate to have some older model CRV's. I am going to think about it as I believe this is a good deal. I would lose my leather but have evrything else. I do really love my vehicle but it would be nice to have a new one to. I put a lot of millage on my vehicles in a short period of time and this could be a good thing. What do you all think of that? Good resale value for sure!

I may change my name to "hondaman02" then I would really have something to argue about here!

diploid

"Gearing also plays a role here, this is why the Escape can tow upto 3,500 lbs and the CRV cannot."

It's also why the manual CR-V can keep up with the Escape V-6 automatic.

P.S.- the CR-V always had 8 inches of ground clearance.

baggs32

varmint,

"'Feel is subtle, practically invisible, but slow to react.'

Hope that clears up the difference between smoothness and reaction time."

How can it be practically invisible and slow to react at the same time? If you feel the wheels slip, it isn't invisible and it is slow to react. Fast and invisible have to go together in this equation so what they wrote doesn't make much sense to me. Below you'll see that they think the CR-V's system is fast but not as invisible. Something does not jive here.

"However, the only direct comparison I've read on the subject (Truck Trend) rated the CR-V's system as the faster reacting of the two. That comes in handy when you're not expecting to slip and at higher speeds."

...and this is what they had to say about the CR-V in the same article when specifically comparing the AWD systems of the CR-V, Escape, RAV4, and Freelander in a sidebar (The first quote in this post for the Escape was taken from the same sidebar):

"Creatively called Real Time Four-Wheel Drive, the Honda system doesn&#146;t use a center transfer case, but rather a series of pumps and friction plates that activate when they sense slip at the front wheels. The system is housed in the front transaxle, adds only 15 lb, and is not as invisible as the other systems, especially when driven energetically."

Then they say this in the CR-V's sidebar:

"the AWD system proved effective and quick to react."

If it is so quick to react, why isn't it as invisible as the others'?

Is there something else that can happen that I'm missing? This is my first 4WD vehicle and I don't have anything else to compare it to. I've driven full size pickups before, but those are completely different animals when it comes to 4WD/AWD systems.

Here's the link to the article for everyone else:

http://www.trucktrend.com/editorial/article.jsp?viewtype=text&id=68878

varmint

Pardon the exaggerated terms in this description.

"If it [the CR-V] is so quick to react, why isn't it as invisible as the others'?"

Because it slams into action. The system does not engage smoothly. A wheel slips for an instant and then, wham, the rear axle gets power. I've watched a slo-mo video of the CR-V on rollers. The rear wheels start moving after the fronts turn from the 12:00 position to the 2:00 position. This is similar to what I've witnessed in real life, when watching a CR-V stuck in the snow.

"Fast and invisible have to go together in this equation so what they wrote doesn't make much sense to me."

I understand your point, but, no, they do not necessarily have to go together. With that statement, they are talking about the transfer of power from front to back. The wheels may spin for a second, then the rear wheels slide nice and smoothly into action. There is no jerk, clunk, or sudden kick from the drivetrain.

In other words, this description is about how the system engages, not when the system engages. I think it's the term "invisible" that makes their position unclear. The process of slippage, recognition, and distribution of power is not invisible. The only invisible part is the last step in that process.

varmint

Scape2 - Gearing is very important; both for speed and towing. I think if you actually take a look at the numbers, you'll find that the CR-V is, in fact, geared lower than the Escape.

Are you telling me that the shift points in the Escape's transmission will not allow it to reach redline? Is that true? If that's true, then the Escape's engine only makes 201 hp for a split second.

What about the rpm for peak hp? Can it make it that far? If not, you've got more serious problems. If the transmission doesn't allow the engine to reach higher rpms, then the Escape does not have 201 hp! Oh, sure the engine would, but the driver wouldn't be able to use it. The transmission acts like a nanny and shuts down the engine before it reaches its potential.

I strongly suggest you double check your statements. If the tranny forces a shift before peak hp, we've just caught Ford in one of their classic blunders.

p.s. I just got my copy of Motor Trend. The CR-V (manual) runs from 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. That's the fastest time, yet. It bested both V6's in the comparison.

whotheman

It had a manual tranny, making it an unfair fight. So why bring up the performance difference, when there is such a difference in transmissions? It's like running a race is sneakers against a guy in wingtips!

And in July 2002 C&D, I don't see any direct comparison of Escape and CR-V.

baggs32

I noticed a couple of other discrepancies in MT's data. One of them being that they have the Escape listed at a lighter weight than the CR-V. I think they listed the curb weight of the I4 FWD model for some reason.

I also noticed that they made comment of how the CR-V suffers when packed with passengers and cargo because of its smaller engine. scape has been trying to get that message across for quite some time now. He can officially back it up now!

varmint,
I see now. I can't imagine that there is a lot of difference in the reaction times of the CR-V and Escape's AWD systems. I can't say that I've ever noticed any wheel slippage in gravel or in snow. If there ever was any, it wasn't much then.

baggs32

Here's a post from another forum. According to the IIHS (and some from around here) shouldn't they have more injuries? Or at least the severity of the injuries should have been greater, right?

Anyway, it's good to see that they were all OK. Buckle up everyone.

"My wife and I bought a 2001 Ford Escape in March of 2001. It was the gold parchment color and we loved it. We later found out that it is a very safe car.

We were driving down a 4 lane road with a 5th turning lane in the middle. I was in the fast lane passing a slower vehicle. I was going between 45-50 mph. Next thing I notice, a car driving the opposite direction on the other side of the road crossed the turning lane and hit us head on in our lane. There wasn&#146;t a thing I could do because there was a car to my right and this car was coming straight at us. I attempted to slow down and move over into the turning lane to miss him but he realized what he was doing and turned into us hitting us in an angle. My father was in the back seat and my pregnant wife was in the passenger seat. We had our seatbelts on and the airbags worked properly. The only injuries suffered were a bruise on my hand from hitting the windshield, my dad got a bump/brush burn on his forehead and my wife had a stiff neck and bruised chest from the seatbelt. Our unborn baby was checked and from what they can tell, it is fine. She is due in October.

Here&#146;s a link to see some of the pictures: http://home.adelphia.net/~billylitt/crash.html

Outside of the Ford Escape being a very nice car to own, it is also a very safe car to drive in. The driver who hit us was traveling around 50 mph at impact and I slowed down to around 30-35 mph at impact. He was messing with something in the backseat while he was driving and when he looked back, he accidentally turned his wheel towards us. We later found out his daughter was eating an ice cream cone.

We got $12,000 from the insurance company for damages and we traded the wrecked car in for $3,000. We used that money to buy us another one. The pictures of the new one are also on the link above. There was no way I was driving a car that previously had $12,000 in damages.

Ford Escape owners can feel safe on the road. Just make sure you wear your seatbelts."

hondaman01

Whotheman......even though it is a 5 speed, there is no reason to believe that it would be that much ahead with a 40hp disadvantage! Your reasoning does not work out! There is too much of a power advantage for the Escape to understand what you are trying to prove. The CRV has a very good 4 and you will have to accept that.

Baggs....no one ever disagreed with scape when he mentioned that fully loaded, the 4 would work harder. We all knew that but he insisted we didn't! Sometimes I think he may disagree with himself!

The question we have all been asking is that how is it that the "little" 4 is so sufficient when compared to the "big" V6???? No matter what tranny you are using, it is very close.

If you load the Escape and CRV with the same amounts, I am sure that the acceleration difference would still be the same. Probably the biggest difference would come when climbing a hill or towing a trailer. Most people do not seem to care about that or they would all buy Escapes! I may find out soon if I decide to get the new CRV.....I will let you know!

hondaman01

Scarey stuff baggs! Glad it turned out good for them. We can argue all we want about the petty things here but it all comes down that thank goodness companies are taking safety seriously now.

muckyduck

in the problems thread - is Ford ever going to fix that darn problem?? (ha ha ha)

baggs32

hondaman,
"The question we have all been asking is that how is it that the "little" 4 is so sufficient when compared to the "big" V6???? No matter what tranny you are using, it is very close."

I wouldn't say that it is sufficient in every comparison. The CR-V has been known to put up better performance numbers, but that can't all be attributed to the engine alone. Most of it can though. A pretty good bit of horsepower is usually lost in Ford's drivetrains, the bigger wheels/tires, more weight, higher drag coefficient, etc. all help to slow the Escape down somewhat.

When you're not racing your vehicle around for pink slips, you (or at least I) use it for hill climbing, towing/hauling/carrying cargo/passengers, pulling those hedges out of the neighbors yard, etc.. In those categories, the Escape shines.

To be perfectly honest with you, I have not floored the gas pedal of our Escape through the first three gears yet. We didn't buy it for that. If we wanted that right now at this time in our lives, I'd be typing on the Mustang GT board right now. I have used it to haul a lot of stuff on the roof and in the bay, as well as pull some small stumps out of the ground (albeit, half dug up already). It hasn't groaned or let up one bit yet.

0-60 times do matter for highway merging, but we're talking tenths of seconds here depending on which publication's numbers we are analyzing that day. I'll just give myself a little more time on the ramps given that info. The CR-V does shine in that situation, and its better trap times are a compliment to Honda's advanced engine technology.

Living where I live, and using the vehicle for what I use it for, the CR-V would not have been the best choice.

hondaman01

Baggs, I have floored the Tribute (cause it was rented!!!) and I thought it was very fast indeed. To not start a new argument however, I am not sure what scape was getting at when he says you can't redline it because it was an automatic (????? engineer!!!??) well, I did! It had no problem hitting the red part of the tach for me! The power was very strong but a little too agressive. The transmission did not seem to be able to follow. My stint with this vehicle was very short-lived however due to some pretty big mechanical problems so that is all the info I have...............BUT very powerful for a suv.

I suppose for what you use it for, you did pick a more logical vehicle. The CRV just would not look very good pulling stumps! I do agree.

I am still thinking quite strongly about that 2002 offer! The salesman called me again today to find out if I was interested. I guess I will leave him hanging for a while to see how serious he is!

npaladin2000

"Are you telling me that the shift points in the Escape's transmission will not allow it to reach redline? Is that true? If that's true, then the Escape's engine only makes 201 hp for a split second.

What about the rpm for peak hp? Can it make it that far? If not, you've got more serious problems. If the transmission doesn't allow the engine to reach higher rpms, then the Escape does not have 201 hp! Oh, sure the engine would, but the driver wouldn't be able to use it. The transmission acts like a nanny and shuts down the engine before it reaches its potential."

As a matter of fact, that Duratec is capable of more horses in other vehicles, if I remember correctly...it's also used in a couple Jaguar models, and you can bet they don't settle for 200 horses. The way the shift points are in the Escape though (and because of the heads, exhaust, etc that they use) at it's peak power point, it makes 201 HP. Just like the CR-V makes 160 HP at it's peak power point...for about half a second.

The fact is, an auto tranny will not allow you to redline a vehicle unless you're manually shifting it. It also won't let you rev to a certain RPM and then launch...at least not easily. These are all things that increase 0-60 times if you can do them, which is why comparing 0-60 in an automatic of one model and a manual shift in another model is completely invalid. Auto trannys trade flexibility for ease-of-use. WIth a manual tranny you can whip the *expletive deleted* out of the engine. Can;t do that with an automatic...you're pretty much limited to the built in acceleration curve.

hondaman01

If that is the case, I still can't understand then how a 40hp advantage and tourque would not beat the CRV manual or not!? I Don't buy it. Most cars with 40hp more will still beat a manual so I believe the Honda uses its power much better and that vtec also plays a real big role with the lower tourque band.

You say the Duratec can make more power!!! So can the 2.4......look into the RSX. I know that the tourque band is much higher but the potential of this engine is there. Better breathing and exaust and you could easily get to 180hp and at the same time, increase tourque.

baggs32

npaladin,

You're right about the invalidity of comparing the 0-60 times between one auto and one manual trans equipped vehicle. It doesn't make a lot of sense. However, the 2002 CR-V with the auto trans has bested the Escape in a few publications' tests as well. It does seem that the I4 of the CR-V can play with the "big" boys when it comes to most people's every day performance needs. It's impressive, but not surprising. Honda's engines are usually like that. Might be one reason why they are staying away from the "real" truck segment. Everything seems to be car based for them now and in the near future:

http://detnews.com/2002/insiders/0208/05/insider-548735.htm

You'll see what I mean in the fourth paragraph.

varmint

Whotheman and others - Yes, the 5 speed CR-V does have an advantage with 0-60 times. However, I fail to see why that is a problem. Doesn't the Escape have two extra cylinders? Wouldn't you call that an advantage? I would.

If you want a fair comparison. I'll give you one. Bring that five speed, 4 cylinder Escape into the discussion. That's an apples to apples comparison.

varmint

"...you (or at least I) use it for hill climbing, towing/hauling/carrying cargo/passengers, pulling those hedges out of the neighbors yard, etc.. In those categories, the Escape shines." - Baggs

Every summer I make several trips with either a CR-V full of friends and camping gear, or dogs with various stuff. My wife and I also frequently haul things back from Home Depot, take the hounds to family events, or load up the vehicle with kids for a Boy Scout outing. Let's just say, I haul either people or stuff every other weekend.

I commute every weekday. About tens times as often as I use it for utility purposes. It gets better mpg, it has lower emissions, and it's more comfortable to live with. In those categories, the CR-V shines.

baggs32

" it's more comfortable to live with."

For you it might be. I didn't find it to be more comfortable to live with (the back door, what I think is poor placement for some of the switches, no center console, etc.).

We were only talking about the engines' ability to perform those duties when I said that, so it wasn't meant to fit 100% into what you said. But you may be on to something there. The CR-V is a little more carlike and therefore may be the better daily driver of the two.

whotheman

It'll lose a second, maybe more on it's 0-60 times! So the 4 ain't that good! It's like comparing the handling of a car with 16" wheels to a car with 18" wheels. They aren't comparable. The manual has that edge in precision and flexibility, plus a lower curb weight, that dooms the Auto.

My point is the CRV had TWO advantages (manual AND lower price) and still got whupped! So drop it!

varmint

Whattheheck - Anytime you want to play an even match, bring that five speed, four cylinder Escape out to play.

varmint

Baggs - You're correct, I did drift away from the engine conversation. My bad. But the emissions and mpg points still stand.

hondaman01

Whotheman.....where do you come from??????? Please find something intelligent to say about this forum please. Sorry Tide, I had to say something as there is no sense to be found in his arguments! Anyone that says Honda's engines are not that good, knows nothing about cars! Baggs admits it, even scape does! 1 second off with an auto 40hp down is pretty darn good for a four compared to a 6!

The CRV de-throaned the Escape with Car and Driver and Honda won in 3 categories with no Ford to be found.......get it right!

tidester

IMHO, it would be more effective to spell out the error of outrageous claims, correct it and back it up - or to ignore it altogether!

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

diploid

"It had a manual tranny, making it an unfair fight."

Yeah, and the Escape has 2 extra cylinders and more engine displacement. Now that's fair, right?