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
The CRV engine is defintitely quieter then the Escape, so I am suprised that you made that observation. I have been in both vehicles a lot over the last few months.
Data to support my claim....
www.autosite.com had decibel readings for the escape and the new CRV and the CRV was quieter when idling and I cannot remember the numbers for the idle. Maybe somebody else can, because I posted the link a while back and now I can't find it at autosite.com since they redesigned the website.
Anyways, I do remember the highway decibels for both vehicles at 70 mph and the Escape was 72 decibels and the CRV was 70 decibels. 2 doesn't seem like much but every 8 to 10 decibels is percieved to be twice as loud. So the Escape is 20 to 25% louder then the CRV at 70 mph!
I live about 20 minutes from Ontario, is that your province???
Yep, 2.5 hours from Montreal. Are you going to the CRV Olympics in NH?
My friend said the same thing when he test drove one (the Escape wasn't out yet when he tried the CRV).
Daveghh,
I do remember reading many things about wind noise in the Escape. So that data may support your claim, but it doesn't say anything about the engine in the CRV being quieter than the Escape at 70 mph, only the overall cabin noise. Wind and tire noise don't normally bother me as much as engine noise, so that's probably our difference in opinion on noise levels.
I liked the way the front seats had space b/w them in the CRV (similar to a minivan). This would be perfect for my dog to lay there. But the engine just did not sound quiet and refined at all to me, which I expected after riding in other Honda products. I know they recently revised their 4 cylinder. Is it better now?
Also, I did not like the driver having an armrest, but the passenger not. That struck me as cheap cost-cutting. I have seen passenger armrest since then on CRV's in parking lots, and they looked the same as the driver's side. So I assume you can order them from Honda. All in all, the main thing is I would have to drive both again myself before buying either.
I said I would have picked the escape at the time, b/w those two vehicles only. I did not say I would plunk $20k on it, b/c of the recalls. However, this is typical of all manufacturers on a new vehicle. I would normally wait till 3rd year to buy a newly designed vehicle. Also, I would still have to go w/ the Escape currently, b/c Honda CRV would not pull a small boat, which I need (want?... hehe.
When I am driving at highway speeds all I can hear is the pavement and a little wind noise because I have a thule rack on my CRV.
I don't notice the loud engine but it is subjective and we can leave it at that.
If you want a boat, then I wouldn't get the CRV because you are right it couldn't handle towing a boat.
I also like the space between the seats, my dog loves to sit there when someone else is riding in the passenger seat. All the automatic CRV's come with armrests on both the driver seat and the passenger seat. I have never ever seen one like the one you drove.
Perhaps it is standard equipment now, but it didn't appear to be when I looked at them, which bothered my wife and I. She wanted an armrest too. I was looking at the LX (I think), if that helps. I can't remember if they were 2000 or 2001. To be fair, the Escapes we looked at had no armrests (just door panel and console).
Hmmmm, maybe the dealer I visited sold a lot of "aftermarket" passenger armrests to CRV buyers... lol.
Oh yeah, does anyone here have a 2002 CRV and is the new engine noticeably more powerful?
Someone mentioned the Avon Lake factory in Ohio about 45 posts ago. My Quest was built there by Ford workers and it seems screwed together pretty good (even though at 70k it's just getting broken in). So if they do switch to building Escapes there, I'd think that bodes well for Ford.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Oh, haha..... I get it now. You drove the 1st generation CRV. I would suggest that you drive the 2002 CRV, you will find it much quieter and very powerful compared to the 1st generation.
Go test drive the 2002, I think you will find it more to your liking.
I just looked at the new 2002 CRV and the numbers were 23/28. I guess the CRV engine is more efficient now than in 2001. The Escape numbers have changed to 23/27 (I think).
I think it's funny that people are arguing about this.
The argument can be skewed by the year models being discussed.
More importantly, they're so similar anyway (excepting the v6)
Everyone,
CRV rates higher then the Tribute and Escape according to consumers. The CRV rating is slightly lower then it would be because the first generation review ratings are included in the overall average.
http://www.carreview.com/pscAutomobiles/SUV/PLS_1524_913crx.aspx
Read through the comments of both vehicles.
- Mark
These ratings are consumer based, not on any statistics. I was also suprised about some of the SUV's that scored well on the list at carreview.com
Just hopping over from the Accord vs 6 discussion...
Here's my observation: People all over the other board have been bashing the Accord for conservative styling, vs. the more adverturous styling of the 6 and Altima.
Now look at the CR-V vs. the Escape. The Escape looks like a hum-drum miniute, very genericaly styled and obvious by design to mimic the family look of the Explorer and Expedition. Ford trucks all ... Ford styling.
Now the CR-V is dramatically styled. The pulled-back head lights, nicely designed. The interesting tail lights, the evolutionary style from the original CR-V. It certainly stands out and is stylistically more adventurous than the Escape, but less so than the RAV4.
IMO, the Honda wins.
Side view: both the CRV and the Escape have a very similar look.. Similar profile and window pillar and glass design. The CRV's smaller tires look out of proportion, whereas the Escapes tires have better proportion..
Front view: CRV and RAV4 look almost the same..I'm not a big fan of the triangle looking headlights that extend that far back on the quarter panels. The Escape has a more 'rugged' or sturdy look to it..
Rear view: Hated the look of the Pontiac Transport when it had the goofy tail lights extended up to the roof.. Looks equally silly in my opinion on the CRV.
How a vehicle looks is probably one of the biggest selling points for a vehicle. From Escape sales, (and that of the other Ford SUV's), it would appear that Ford has done a decent job..
Obviously folks like the CRV styling as it is selling very well too. If you want a 'cute' look the CRV would win, if you want a look that some of the larger SUV's have, the Escape has this..
If you wanted something in between, look toward the Tribute..
Matching bumpers wouldn't hurt, either.
http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_041276
It took some getting used to because I didn't realize there would be so much noise even with the windows cracked open--it's OK, but I sure have to crank the radio up to hear the news. The engine seems really quiet to me--especially when idlying--I've accidentally tried to start it twice because I couldn't hear the engine running!
I also see there is an armrest for both the driver and passenger. I love those headlights--am ambivalent about the rear lights, except I do think they make the brake lights more visible--but what the heck does "Aztek" mean?
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
Escape + Tribute sales: 17501
CRV sales: 14596
Tribute/Escape top CRV in sales.
0-60 times for the Escape are in no way 9.3 seconds.. Consumer reports/Motor Trend are just two sources that rate the Escape at 8.5 second 0-60 times. this 8.1 second time CRv owners love to gloat about is from a manual gear box. They also fail to mention you have to rev the he.. out of the 2.4 in order to achieve these numbers..
Styling.. goes to the Escape.. Every review I have read has said the Escapes looks are just one of its strong points. The CRV's front lights have always taken a hit, along with the odd tail light arrangement to its "bug" "beetle" like shape/look.
Escape and Tribute have got to lose their side cladding! It is ugly! The Tribute has a clear coat on it and the girl I work with has complained about hers being pitted from the winters here especially in the front. This must be costing Mazda some money to fix.
Overall I think the Tribute looks better but the front end is very ordinary for both Trib and Escape....don't like square looking headlights.
I am surprised that Honda even made the move to those kind of headlights....I think it looks different.
I do have to say that the Escape does look very nice for a Ford. Looks are not the issue.
You and your revving!!! Honda's are made for that (vtec and racing heritage) Go try the 4 in the Escape and compare......no contest!
Hondaman, the thing you fail to realize is over 80 percent of Escapes sold are with the v6 motor..
There is no way you get the same back in your seat acceleration I get, when you put your foot into your CRV at 55mph to pass or merge on the highway. The Duratec V6 was a wonderful choice for the Escape/Trib.. You just keep justifying in your mind that your 2.4 with 160HP 160ft/lbs of torque is every bit as powerful as the 200HP 200ft/lbs of torque 3.0... Dream, Dream, Dream..... you know that song???
It takes more then horsepower to have a good acceleration. Tire size, gear ratios, peak curves and many other things. To say otherwise, is being quite obtuse! My CRV beat the V6 from 40 to 60 mph! It clearly beat it.
http://beta.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=31232
Your right dave, hp is not always the element of acceleration but he is an engineer so............
Scape,
What kind of engineer are you? I forgot...
To be honest, I've not been able to find a chart of the HP/Torque curve of the 3.0L v6.. I've also not driven an 02 CRV so I don't know what it feels like..
Like you say, the torque/HP curve mean alot.. Generally this is where the larger displacement engines tend to do better than smaller. The HP/Torque curves tend to be flatter, which gives a harder pull at a wider (and usually lower) RPM range than the more peaky smaller engines.
Hondaman:
Why do you keep claiming that Honda is a bad company? No one else here seems to even imply that.
dave......looking forward to scapes answer as well........been wondering about this for a LONG time now!
A few years ago, I had a CR-V for a month skiing on the South Island of New Zealand. It had a 5-speed and moved right along though I can't imagine that car with an automatic. This was with the last generation engine. Handling is significantly better than a Detroit SUV. Every day, I had the thing climbing 2000 vertical feet of steep gravel switchbacks and it performed well.
If I had to pick between the two cars, I'd take the CR-V. Neither works for me since I tow 5,000 pounds and really need a V8.
I appreciate your opinion!
Bess,
Their was no measured time from 40 to 60 mph, it was a race from 40 to 60 mph a few times. They are both automatic transmissions. The CRV dogs it from high 20's to high 30's compared to the V6.
I also assume that the new generation CRV is at least in the same class as the Escape engine wise.
Just as you are tired of hearing about the Escapes slight engine advantage that (you claim) has basically no difference in everyday driving.
I am tired of hearing the same 'reliability' rants about the Honda, when there is no difference to the average owner in everyday driving.
These 2 vehicles are very closely matched in almost all aspects. I beleive that either vehicle would be the right choice depending on the individual.
Escape
0-30mph 3.2
0-60mph 8.9
45-65mph 6.0
CR-V
0-30mph 3.4
0-60mph 9.6
45-65mph 6.1
After almost three weeks of owning a CR-V, I am so glad I didn't buy an Escape which we almost did. I can sleep nights not worrying about reliability (statistics back me up on this one - hence CR's forecast of predicted reliability for the CR-V as excellent and that of the Escape as poor).
In order for a car to have such a high resale value, it has to be considered tops in that class! The Kia Sportage would not have that now would it?
C'mon bess look at Ford and Honda's record and percentage wise (due to number of models) you will see a big differece. Accord/Taurus, Civic/Focus, Odyssey/Windstar and CRV/Escape....so far it is ahead in its first year of production (2002) and previous model was on par with Rav4. There is really no comparison here. As I said before, I will argue this issue forever BUT I can still say that the Escape will get better. Ford keeps on admitting production and engineering problems and this can only lead to further problems if that issue is not fixed. Look at the Focus right now, it is under investigation!
I am not tired of hearing that the Escape has more power only from scape because MOST people do not need that power in real life unless they are towing or carrying heavy loads. Even then, I would not pick either! The CRV is selling without any incentives or special rates etc...maybe the Escape would not sell so much if the rates were the same......who knows!
Reputations are not handed to you, they have to be won! Honda started 30 years ago as a piece of scrap and now it is a major force in racing and production engines, automobiles etc.....
"These ratings are consumer based, not on any statistics. I was also suprised about some of the SUV's that scored well on the list at carreview.com."
So the information that CR collects from consumers to come to their conclusions is not consumer based? How can you believe one set of data collected from consumers, but not the other?
How are we supposed to be impressed with that site when the CR-V had 136 total consumer reviews since October of 1999?
hondaman,
"Baggs, you talk of the Civic being unreliable! I think you just don't like it that's all. Go drive a Focus and get back to me! UUGGGGGGHHHHHH!"
Well you guys keep reminding us of the Escape's recalls so I thought I'd remind you that Honda is quite capable of the same mistakes.
If you keep feeling the need to compare the two companies, you have to look at the big picture. The Civic isn't the only one in recent years either.
Actually I do like our Civic (MY 1996, only two recalls for this one). It is a pretty nice little car for my wife. All our problems with it were far removed from the drive line. As a matter of fact, it has a little over 50,000 miles on it and I just replaced the first thing in the engine that wasn't the oil or oil filter. I put a brand spankin' new air filter in it! If it's good this week, I'll change the oil and PCV valve too! I told her when she bought it that the body would fall apart before the engine dies, and so far I think I'm right.
Every car has their problems........it's mechanical! However, in general terms, the overall quality of that car has outlived many models for years. I don't really like the newer one however.......Honda should have been more radical and took some styling cues from other companies. But, once again, they always seem to stick to what works.
Hey as I said before, I think the Escape/Tribute is the best thing that Ford ever did BUT to say that five years down the road it will be as long lasting as the CRV...........I am not sure. Honda only has a few models to take care of whereas Ford as so many different configurations that it must be a nightmare logistically!
Since the 2002 CRV has been completely redesigned, it was too new to be included in its ratings of the Mini SUV's. I am sure the CRV will be recomended next year.
Baggs,
In my quote, "So the information that CR collects from consumers to come to their conclusions is not consumer based? How can you believe one set of data collected from consumers, but not the other?" I am referring to carreview.com only, not Consumer Reports. Of course CR uses consumer data to get its results.
Also, could you (Baggs) elaborate on your following comment so I can respond to it. Your comment was, "How are we supposed to be impressed with that site when the CR-V had 136 total consumer reviews since October of 1999?"
I misunderstood what you were originally saying. I get it now.
As far as saying the CR-V is the consumer's choice by that site, I have to strongly disagree. We already went over this regarding carpoint once. You neither need to own the vehicle, or even know what it is to post something about it on those boards. Those review sites are "like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Even the CR-V appears to have a Honda basher posting multiple "2" ratings right on the first page.
Anyway, how many people own CR-V's (all years)? Like a million? A grand total of 136 people posted reviews of it on that site since October of 1999. That isn't even close to being a valid sample.
Daveghh, Consumer Reports did recommend the CR-V, however the bad news is that they chose the Rav-4 as their best pick. I wouldn't have.
Consumer Reports both test drives vehicles and collects long term consumer information through surveys both to determine overall reliability and histories of trouble areas.
I am sure the Escape escaped their recommended list based largely on reliability issues, as its performance was excellent and its crash test scores were no worse than the RAV-4, or pre-2002 CR-Vs.
The RAV-4 bested the CR-V (in CR's opinion, not mine), before the most recent offset tests were published for the 2002.
It seems to me that there is something for everyone there. If you absolutely have to tow jet skis or whatever and don't mind risks then the Escape is for you. If you would rather throw a canoe on top and like peace of mind then there are other and in my opinion better choices.
Soccermom,
Did I ever mention that I like your user name? LOL! I was not aware that the CRV was rated this year, you must have picked up a more recent magazine. The RAV4 is a very nice vehicle, on par with the CRV, except for it quite expensive and a bit smaller then the CRV. The CRV is definetly a better value in my opinion.
Baggs,
I agree with what you say about the posts at carreview.com. It is a lousy sample. If it was a random sample and there was only 136 people polled, then the data could be representative of the entire population of the owners. With a margin of error of course. In essence, the larger the sample the smaller the margin of error becomes, as you are probably aware.
soccermum,
What kind of canoe do you have that you'd need an Escape to tow it but yet it's light enough to go on the roof rack of a CR-V?
Treat CR/MT/review opinions as what they are worth for. They are what they are. Just an opinion. We cannot *totally* go by it nOR discredit it. I would rather support broad-based surveys results like JDPower ("real world customers") / repeat purchase rankings ("satisfied customers"), etc.
"If I took those rails off and set he object directly on the roof, shouldn't it hold much more weight?"
I would say yes.
My '02 CRV has a Thule rack system, so my rack is rated to 150 pounds. Twice as much as the stock rack.
In addition... The CRV stock rack (rated at 75 pounds) can carry ANY canoe because Canoes generally weigh in between 40 and 70 pounds.
The engine debate... The 5 speed CR-V has been clocked at 8.1, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.8 seconds. The Escape ranges from 8.1 to 9.3. So far, we have little data for the auto CR-V, but the numbers we have point to a range between 8.9 and 9.6 seconds.
Clearly, the 5 speed CR-V is on par (if not faster) than the V6 Escape (auto only). The automatic CR-V has not been clocked with the same low numbers, but it's not more than half a second away. In fact, there has been at least one head to head test where the auto CR-V bested the Escape.
(BTW, some folks here may be surprised to learn that the old 146 hp CR-V has been clocked at 8.6 and 8.9 seconds when mated to a 5 speed stick.)
Both vehicles are revved to redline to get these numbers.
A number of reviewers have commented that the Escape's V6 is rough at high rpms. I have not found any complaints about low rpm vibration. The CR-V has been lauded for it's balance in both the high and low rpm ranges.
The torque curve for the CR-V is strong from beginning to end. Torque peaks at 3,600 rpms, but the i-VTEC head design holds 90% of peak torque from 2,250-5,500 rpms. The Escape has considerable more torque, but it doesn't peak until about much higher in the rpm band. Chances are, the torque curve drops like a rock given the short distance to the HP peak. However, at that rpm, it doesn't matter much.
The Escape clearly bests the CR-V in the towing department. The differences in published numbers are like night and day. However, published numbers are not standardized. Some numbers are rated for one driver while other ratings include a car full of people and stuff. The difference in reality may be less (we'll never really know), but I'm still certain the advantage will always be with the Escape.
Under heavy load, the Escape will have an advantage over the CR-V. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. However, I doubt that the difference is what Scape2 would like us to believe. This will come into play when people carry lots of people and stuff.
The CR-V is cleaner and more fuel efficient. This will come into play for anyone who uses the car as a commuter car five days a week.
Sales... The CR-V doesn't really need to better the total number of units sold to be considered on par with the Escape/Tribute. The industry standard for sales, is actually the number of units per dealership. Honda may no longer be a tiny company, but Ford is still huge. Ford has an enormous dealer network, which, in comparison, makes Honda look tiny. Add Mazda dealers to that number and you see why CR-V sales are so remarkable.
(As a side note, the Santa Fe is also selling well, given dealership limitations.)
It's too soon to tell what the effects will be, but, up until July, CR-V sales have been limited by production volume. In July, US dealers began receiving units from the Swindon plant in the UK. Sales for July are about 2K higher than the average of previous months. There are no incentives, so increased production is the only difference. **If** sales continue that trend, then the CR-V will likely best both the Escape and Tribute (which it has done before).
"In addition... The CRV stock rack (rated at 75 pounds) can carry ANY canoe because Canoes generally weigh in between 40 and 70 pounds."
I knew that much. I'm just wondering why someone would need a vehicle that can tow 3500 lbs to tow the canoe?
Just having a little fun with soccermum.
I recall scape2 saying that the stalling issue isn't really a problem, that everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. I strongly disagree. I think that's a wake up call on the manufacturers behalf to take this matter seriously, and take responsibility for such a thing. Maybe buy back all affected models,(ones that have stalled and ones that haven't) and replace them with the latest model without the problem. (sure would be cheaper than settling lawsuits eh?)
Does this defect have to claim peoples lives before any serious action is taken? I mean driving one of those is like a game of russian roulette. You may get one that will never ever stall, and serve its owner well. On the other hand, you may end up towing two jet skis, two suitcases or more of clothes, supplies, two kids etc. going to Lake Tahoe and suddenly stall on a steep slick switchback. Listen, anti-lock brakes are designed to maintain steering control in adverse conditions, snow ice etc. So if you stall, you lose pwr steering, pwr brakes, AND your anti-lock brakes. I don't think I have to finish, as you could probably imagine what "COULD" happen as a result. You might not be around to post your "stalling issue experience" here on Edmunds.
You be the judge.