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
Few mods to do? LOL
Must be a high flow air filter, a couple of stickers and a coffee can muffler.
But serously, the CRV and TSX engine probably share nothing else but the engine block, not mentioning a huge difference in price.
Sales figures are always argued on this board in reference to popularity. I, like you, hope no one uses it as a guage for quality. I'm sure some shoppers do though.
"That 7.3 second run was 0-100 kms, which is more like 0-62 mph."
My bad. I scanned the article for numbers before actually reading the content.
"I doubt anyone would be able to feel the difference. However, when you get into the higher rpms, look out."
That's the problem. That article makes mention of how the TSX has more HP than the BMW 325i, Audi A4 1.8t, etc.. If you don't know what the rest of the numbers mean, which most shoppers don't, you'd think it was a faster more powerful car. Order one with the 5-speed auto tranny and all you'll see is the brake lights of those said BMW's and Audi's because you won't hit max power until after they do. By then it's probably too late. The manual seems to be the only way to go.
Plop this engine in the CR-V with an auto tranny and, like you said, no one would notice the difference unless they held the throttle to red line all the time. What's the point of having 200 HP up high as opposed to 160 down lower when you'll rarely see the extra 40 and it would cost you a lot more at the pump. Even if it bumps the towing/hauling capacities up would you want to tow that extra weight at a higher RPM?
If you haven't noticed, I'm not looking for speed out of an SUV at all. Honda has a good, purposeful engine in the CR-V right now. It does what it should without being to fancy (high-revving and the likes). Ford should have used the 4.0L(?) from the Ranger in the Escape if they really wanted to make it more like a truck. 207 HP at 5250 RPM and 238 ft/lbs at 3000 RPM. It's just a good old fashioned pushrod though.
Yes! That's why all those Civic's you see with the same few mods need those huge whale tale spoilers.
That said, the changes are not so significant that it would prevent Honda from fitting it into the CR-V's engine bay. The different valve gear, compression rates, and other parts are interchangeable. It's been done with plenty of other engines. RSX owners have taken the CR-V's engine and bolted on the RSX-S valve gear for increased low-end power. They call them "Frankenstein" blocks.
I'm not saying Honda will do this... just that it is very possible.
Baggs - I doubt that it would increase towing capacity, at all. The move would be purely for speed and a stronger image in the press. However, I disagree about people noticing the change. While the slightly lower torque rating would not be very perceptible, the added horsepower would come on around 4,000 rpms. Anyone who wants a 200 horsepower CR-V isn't going to be the type to granny shift it at 2,000 rpms.
If I remember correctly you can get the auto in the 4cyl. You just can't get the 5-spd in the v-6 (Yet).
Odie
But those are the types that buy CR-V's. I read somewhere that over 60% of CR-V buyers are women. Soccer moms.
What are you going to do with a performance based SUV? There is an extremely small market for them out there, but I can't see the value of doing it to the entire model. Like you said, a special edition maybe.
You're going to lose some utility by slapping a high revver in there too. The lack of low end power will hurt somewhat on hills. Add people/cargo and the driving experience becomes even more unpleasant. No doubt it would be fun at the track though.
That's for the the XLS trim. You know, the rental version. Take a look at the trim levels of the one's you see on the road. Most will be XLT's, which when optioned to match the creature comforts of the CR-V EX (moon roof, upgraded stereo, power everything, etc.) costs waaaay more even with incentives.
The XLS (which at the price mentioned above is most likely a RWD 4X2) is a nice alternative to a CR-V or Escape if you just need the vehicle for utility. It's bigger in every way. This is probably why it fits so well into fleets. It's not the every day driver version.
I understand you are saying it wouldn't run with the higher trim levels of the V and the Escape if that's what someone was looking for. All the same, there are plenty of people who will pay more for less.
All this talk about how Escape only sells because of incentives. Every thought for maybe just one minute the Escape is attractive? or better yet the better vehicle?
Let it snow! We are getting blown away here in the NW with Mountain snows.. I'll be skiing this weekend in my unreliable Escape.... The vehicle that has gotten me to the mountains now about 30+ times over its 20,000+ miles...
See. That's where you're wrong. Me too, for that matter. People always assume that when Honda makes a engine that revs up high, it's going to lose low end power. We've got to stop doing that. I went back and did an rpm by rpm comparison. The result? The TSX has more low-end torque.
1500 rpms: TSX has roughly 139 vs 131 for the CR-V.
2000 rpms: TSX = 148 CR-V = 141
2500 rpms: TSX = 156 CR-V = 150
3000 rpms: TSX = 159 CR-V = 156
I agree that this engine is way more power than the CR-V needs. And I agree that it would be mostly a marketing ploy. But, then again, the Escape's V6 is more power than a vehicle in this class needs. And the 201 horses is a big reason why it sells. So, why shouldn't Honda do something similar?
BTW, Subaru is putting a turbo 2.5L in the Forester later this year. It's good for 225 horses. Somebody thinks there's a market for rocket SUVs.
Besides, how many Subaru dealers are in your area? I can count two off the top of my head. I can count four Honda dealers within the same area. I don't think it will be a big threat. Although I do see quite a few WRX sedans around here.
"People always assume that when Honda makes a engine that revs up high, it's going to lose low end power. We've got to stop doing that."
Old habits are hard to break I guess.
Maybe I should have said that the CR-V wouldn't gain any utility with the 2.4.
It was posted that the Escape does not need the power that it's V6 offers. I'll agree, it really doesn't for the majority of people. However, there will always be that group who cross-shops the two in looking for the one with the most utility. The CR-V still won't be as appealing to them because, even though it can get up and go a little better and has a HP number equal to the Escape, it still doesn't pull any better. It looks like they're maxed out on torque when it comes to the 2.4 so a V6 is probably the only way to go if they really want to compete with the likes of the Escape and the Liberty when it comes to utility. That's not to say that flashing '200 HP' up on the screen during a CR-V commercial wouldn't help sales though.
Does that make a little more sense?
Didn't Nissan try the turbocharged SUV thing with the XTerra too?
http://www.just-auto.com/news_detail.asp?art=40436
The XTerra uses a supercharger. Soobs use turbos. I think Chevy used a twin turbo in the Cyclone and whatever they called the S-10 Blazer equivalent. I've forgotten what Ford uses in the Lightning. Probably just displacement.
I don't think the designers of the CR-V want it to compete with the Xterra and Liberty when it comes to utility. They know that very few people actually use them for that reason.
Not many people use them to race at stop lights either. Since we're talking about sporty SUV's I thought I'd go ahead and add that you (not varmint specifically) need to do a lot more than increase engine power to make an SUV sportier. Better wheels/tires, better springs/shocks, lower ride height, etc. have to be added as well. SVT usually does a really good job of that and rumors of an SVT Escape have been flying around. I just don't know that Honda would be willing to, or have the resources, to make that kind of commitment to a very low volume vehicle. Sure they could do the engine thing, but all you would have is a drag racer.
"I've forgotten what Ford uses in the Lightning. Probably just displacement."
Actually it's a little of both. The SVT Lightning has a supercharged 5.4L 16 valve Triton V8 under it's hood. The 2003 Mustang Cobra has the supercharged version of their 4.6L 32 valve modular V8. Now, the Cobra R had the un-blown 5.4L V8 (32 valve I think) which was quite a performer on it's own in that application. I'm pretty sure the current Cobra bests all of it's performance marks though. Plus you can drive it every day. The new GT will use an updated version of the 32 valve 5.4L V8 but it will be teamed up with a supercharger to make 500 HP. Unfortunately it stickers in excess of $100,000.
If I recall correctly, the supercharged version of the 5.4 was primarily used because of the Lightning's weight and possibly because their gasoline V10 probably doesn't fit in the F-150. Which is probably why that engine is only offered in the Super-Duty line.
Now the SVT Focus' 2.0L version of the Zetec would be an interesting base engine for the Escape. It weighs in with 170 HP@7000 RPM and 145 lb/ft @ 5500 RPM. Slightly more horses than the CR-V, but not as much twist. I still don't like how the power comes in at such a lofty RPM though. This engine is reportedly (MT and C&D) going to get a turbo charger sometime this year.
Just some food for thought.
Here's the link to Ford's SVT site if anyone wants to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.svt.ford.com
Here's a little more on what's to come for those SVT engines mentioned above:
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat- _code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=09433474
These might interest you:
http://www.fastlane.com.au/News_Mazda/MX_Sportif_concept.htm
http://www.carpages.co.uk/mazda/mazda_takes_wraps_off_fourth_mode- l_05_03_03.asp
The first one gives a little more info about the engine than the car, and the second one is vice versa. Some interior pictures have been floating around an Escape forum but I can't link you to them. Besides, I'm probably already near the top of Steve and Tidester's lists for going off-topic three posts in a row.
The interior does resemble the current 6's interior. Maybe a little flashier but not to the point that it's obscene.
I like how you then want to throw in 'fleet sales'. From other members on this board, it appears that Honda CRV also has fleet sales as well. Also, companies buying fleet vehicles have the same choice of vehicles to buy from that everyone else does.
Are you suggesting companies that engage in fleet sales buy the best vehicles? That they have a choice and choose Ford? Comon! Hertz isn't going to buy anything but Ford products. Most large American companies won't give foreign vehicles a thought when it comes to purchasing a fleet. There is the potential for too much backlash. To suggest Honda is on a level playing field when it comes to fleet sales is 100% wrong.
BTW it's not the first time I have brought up fleet sales.
I'm not sure if this is still true, but Ford did own a significant portion of Hertz a few years back. If that's the case, Hertz most likely isn't really "buying" their cars from Ford in the same way some of the other rental companies buy their vehicles from the manufacturers.
"To suggest Honda is on a level playing field when it comes to fleet sales is 100% wrong."
No they are not on a level playing field. That's only the U.S. though. It may be different elsewhere for all we know.
You have to remember too that Ford can and does produce a lot of extra copies of all their vehicles specifically for fleet sales. They're usually optioned with all the basics and that's it. A lot of them (I doubt it's a majority) make their way back to dealer lots to be sold as used cars. Watch out for those.
"To figure out the fact employee and supplier discounts factor a big part in Escape sales."
I doubt it's as big as you are making it out to be. I can't imagine that you would be able to find too many of them on rental lots. Most people will stick with a mid-size sedan because it is cheaper to rent and more abundant on the lot or a mid-sized SUV if they really need it.
Also, Hertz, for example, doesn't buy Escapes every day like the public does. They buy them in bulk and rent them out for a couple of years before refreshing the lot. Their impact on sales would most likely be shown in a month(s) where you see a spike in total sales. If they bought several thousand a month, you'd see a lot more of them on used car lots. I know I don't.
Oh goody! Can we talk about sales outside of the US now!?!? Trust me baggs, you don't want to go there.
BTW, note that I am not saying that employee sales are or are not a significant percentage of Escape sales, as I can't find any real data that supports or deny's it.
However, with 300,000+ Escapes being sold, I have a hard time believing that employee sales had a significant impact.
I don't read the paper often, but I don't think I've ever seen a dealer print the employee price. So, tell me, what was the employee price that was posted? Maybe it was a sales gimmick so when non-employees go to buy an Escape, the salesperson can say, 'see, I can't go any lower, your getting the same deal as we give our employees!'
It is also unlikely that the employee price on an Escape is that much lower than what the average person can get one for.. I had no problems buying mine at $300 over invoice, no special plans or incentives were involved. With the Escape, the difference between invoice and msrp isn't really that much, unlike the markup Ford has on its larger SUVs.
So it is not as much of an 'incentive' for an employee.
Why not stick the claim that folks purchase the Escape because is it affordable, functional, reliable and good looking. This is closer to reality.
Oh yeah.. I still have yet to have any problems with my 2001 XLT Escape 4x4, and I'm at 28,562 miles as of about 2pm today (EST)
Odie
I couldn't if I wanted to because I could care less. I said "It may be different elsewhere for all we know." "May" is the key word because I don't know and, again, don't care enough to look it up. The markets are completely different outside the U.S. and both aren't sold in every country which doesn't always make for a fair playing field. However, if you know the answer, by all means show us.
Note: If you do go looking for numbers remember that the Escape is sold as the Maverick in several other countries. You have to include those too.
bess,
It's hopeless. Honda is the perfect company. Haven't you figured it out yet? They never offer any incentives, don't sell to their employees at a discount, and produce vehicles that never break. All they have to do is increase production ten-fold and we can all live like those happy people in the movie 'The Truman Show'.
Once that becomes clear to you, we can start talking about that bridge in NY that you wanted to buy from me.
Baggs - Frankly, I'm not interested in sales from any nation, nevermind foreign ones. You mentioned the posibility of fleet sales outside the US, which is begging for a comparison of sales. Given the number of markets where the CR-V is the best seller, I was just heading that off before it got ugly.
I don't think Honda's perfect, just significantly better than their U.S. conterparts.
I bring up incentives when people like to post sales as proof of a better vehicle.
But, what is 'better' for you may not be better for others. Why the Escape was a better vehicle for me than the CRV:
a. In my opinion the Escape looks much better.
b. I was able to get a better equiped Escape for less money than a CRV.
c. I very much liked the performance of the Escape more than the CRV, (both equipped with automatics).
d. I like the interior layout better on the Escape.
e. All previous Fords owned by me and my family have been 100% reliable for literally hundreds of thousands of miles. Never once left stranded or put in an unsafe situation because of a vehicle fault. On rare occasions we would have a minor problem repaired under the standard 3/36 warranty. On my old 89' Ranger, we did need to have a fuel pressure regulator replaced at 186K miles and the manual transmission replaced at 220k miles. From the sounds of things, the average Honda's are just as reliable as what I've been experiencing with my Fords.
f. The Ford dealerships in my area have decent sales departments, and excellent service departments (good quality, and fast professional service).
I think everyone in that town did come to think of it.
"You mentioned the posibility of fleet sales outside the US, which is begging for a comparison of sales."
Yes, but the U.S. is the world's largest automobile market. Honda is fortunate enough to not be able to keep up with demand over here. They don't sell as much as to fleets as the domestics do over here, but that doesn't mean they don't sell to them at all.
"Given the number of markets where the CR-V is the best seller, I was just heading that off before it got ugly."
Yes again, but the Escape may not be sold in a lot of those markets. The V6 just would not sell in a lot of overseas countries due to it's higher cost, and lower fuel mileage when compared to some imports. We all know what the Escape's I4 brings to the table in comparison. There just isn't any. The big 2.5's SUV offerings aren't really what I'd call "World Cars" even though they do try to sell some of them around the world.
J.D. Power
Consumer Reports
Intellichoice
They conduct real surveys with real people. They back up my reality and my experiences along with those of countless others.
I bought my vehicle because it will damage the environment less. It will use less fuel. It is more likely (by all standards within the automotive industry) to protect my family better in a frontal crash, a side crash and a rear crash. It will have fewer problems than most vehicles in it's class. It will retain more of it's residual value.
My perception of Ford is backed by years of products that make people laugh and say Found On Road Dead. And Fix Or Repair Daily.
My perception of Ford is also backed up by
J.D. Power
Consumer Reports
Intellichoice
And articles like the one I posted last week where a Ford employee stated that they try to build cars to last 15 years (and just started striving to that lofty goal in the mid 90's). They raised their standards because they had to, Honda and Toyota raised the bar. Not because Ford Quality is #1 but because they were forced to!
Prove my perception, J.D. Power, Intellichoice, and C.R. are wrong.
Lemme see somthing that says buying a Ford is a better bet.
No one seems to have a problem saying J.D. Power, C.R. and Intellichoice are biased but, there is no one to vouch for Ford.
All we have to go on are accounts from Ford employees, family members of employees and suppliers.
No one is trying to prove that Ford produces a better product.
"Heck, show me where Ford itself has stated they are on the top in terms of quality."
I've been reading "The Ford Century" and they even state that Japanese cars are of better quality in there. It still doesn't mean that Ford's vehicles won't appeal to the masses. Just face it, people like them. Whether it be because of price, features, performance, or even color choices, they still buy them in very large quantities.
You claim to buy Honda's for all the reasons stated above. That's fine. Just understand that a lot of other people feel differently and your "facts" don't mean anything to them. Life's just too short for that sometimes.
I must admit that I've learned a lot about Honda's automobile division over the past year or so. They seem to run a pretty tight ship and it is paying off right now. On the other hand, even if they currently did make "perfect" cars and "trucks", I still wouldn't want one because they just don't float my boat right now.
(Thank goodness for Mazda! I can get a fun-to-drive car that's good on gas and really affordable.)
I know other people have other priorities when it comes to buying a vehicle. Our discussion here often deals with which is the better built or more reliable. If you have that particular discussion and base the entire argument on facts, there is really nothing to discuss.
Under 99.9% of the target markets normal driving conditions they both perform about the same. They both are comfortable. They both handle well. They both accelerate and brake very well. Styling is subjective as is interior layout. They only major edge for either of them is reliability (not percieved, actual on paper stats) and residual value.
Do you work for or with Ford? Seriously, I think the only people who are very passionate about Ford work or have worked for them. Or, they have a family member who works/worked for Ford. Those who are passionate about Honda base their opinions on ownership, and have often driven other vehicles out of choice, not circumstance.
I've been asked that before (actually accused would be a better word), and the answer is no. I don't personally know or am related to anyone who works for them. My wife had a class with a guy who is/was some sort of regional inventory manager and that's how we were able to use Ford's X-Plan to buy the Escape. I have never even met the guy.
Note:
If you are thinking that we bought the Escape only because of the X-Plan you're 100% wrong. We didn't find out about the discount until after we had shopped around and chose the Escape. He offered the deal to us when my wife told him what we were buying. We didn't know anything about any X, A, etc. Plans before then.
What have they done for you lately?
BTW I was driving behind one of those GM/Lumina goofy looking vans with the vertical tail-lights...and, it does look like a CR-V from afar...at night...yuck.
You see, IMHO, the HOnda may run a little farther and a little cheaper, but the Ford is usually nicer and more fun, not to mention more attractively designed. What has Ford done for me lately? Provided me with nicely designed autos that are pretty and fun to drive, and give me little or no problems for years. By comparison, Honda has provided me with drop-dead reliable products that run and run for years and years with little or no problems, but are boring and tinny as hell.
Well, there you have it.
Anyway, I guess you could chalk my affinity up to past family experiences. I have other relatives who swear by GM products and never have any problems with them too. All the DC people I know of have had some sort of major problem(s) at one point or another. DC makes some of their vehicles so good looking that it's easy to forget the crap under those pretty faces. I can count the number of imports that show up during the holidays on one hand. If I'm not mistaken, all are Honda's too.
Just call me old fashioned I guess.
*edit*
I'll second what Navigator said above. It's just my opinion too. I know my old ZX2 wasn't going to outlast the Civic because the engine just wasn't going to handle me taking it to redline after every stop. However, it was infinitely more fun to drive right out of the box.
If you compare current vehicles dollar for dollar, I'd say the nicer and more fun statement falls flat on it's face. Before the Focus, I can't think of a Ford that was as fun as the CRX or Civic Si.
The CR-V and the Escape are in the same class when it comes to materials and a solid feel.
Do you or varmit work for Honda??
Face it Honda fans. People are finding out the Escape/Tribute are reliable/quality built vehicles and word is spreading. This is why Escape/Trib sales are up and CRV sales are DOWN or flat at best.
iciv, how can you rely on this data from these companies when Honda hides its TSB information from the public??
Took my Escape XLT 4x4 up over MT Hood this weekend. It was snowing over 1" an hour.. The little ute did fine, NO chains! made it over the top no problems.. I had chains though just in case. I now have have about 22,000 trouble free miles on my Escape with NOT ONE Problem. I also own a 1998 Ranger 4x4 reaching the 85,000 mile mark and its had no problems.. C'mon Honda fans..thought all Fords were supposed to be unreliable??
Ever thought that maybe, just maybe Ford/Mazda have a huge winner on its hands? ever thougth people may just like them better than the CRV? Ever thought???
If you compare current vehicles dollar for dollar, I'd say the nicer and more fun statement falls flat on it's face. Before the Focus, I can't think of a Ford that was as fun as the CRX or Civic Si.
The CR-V and the Escape are in the same class when it comes to materials and a solid feel.
Frankly, I'd take the manual CR-V for driving pleasure. It's got more character, too. The CR-V has a pass-through between the front seats, a picnic table in the back, a funky e-brake, fully reclining seats, and standard moonroof on EX models.
The Escape has a bunch of ordinary appliances inside, styling that looks like every other Ford truck on the road, and a 200 hp engine that can only be had with a 4 speed automatic transmission. How much fun can you have with an automatic-only SUV? There's a reason why people call them "slushboxes".
As I said initially, Fords have usually treated me very well. I don't dispute that Honda has less problems per hundred, but there's more to my satisfaction equation than the red circle under reliability alone. Based upon the highway view - I have a lot of company. I don't know, can anybody EVER make the "perfect car"? Somebody should have done that by now...... Oh, that's right, Henry Ford did a long time ago.... I think Honda copied it. And my daughter is driving it.
Yes, very subjective. But if Honda styling is "Sears" styling, what the heck is Ford?
Kmart?
Ford makes so many cars that inspire no emotion whatsoever. Here are a few names to throw a Blue Light Oval on...Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, Contour/Mystique, Aspire(haahaa for what?), Taurus/Sable (let this one die while they worried about trucks.)Tempo/Topaz, Blandstar, and all of the trucks look the same. (Except for the Escape which took styling cues from the Cherokee.)
Emotion inspiring? The Mustang (of course, if it didn't have a V8 it would just be ugly.), Lincoln LS (could be a Mitsu Diamante), Thunderchicken, and SVT Focus are there only vehicles that do anything for me other than inspire a so-what glance.
Only my subjective opinion.
I think any kid (or adult for that matter) would rather drive a new Escape over a 14 year old Civic with 170,000 miles on it. Heck, I would.
Like you, I also see myself as a very conservative person and look for vehicles that are capable of lasting a very long time (10 years/200k+ miles) reliabily, at a reasonable purchase price. I believe there are many brands out there that are capable of this including Honda, Toyota, Nissan and yes Ford.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/11/pf/autos/bc.autos.consumerreports- .reut/index.htm
Why? Because he doesn't consider CR to be of a higher standard than his own experiences and opinions? Letting someone else set your standards does not mean you have high standards. I think it actually means that one has no standards.
I for one will not let some numbers in a few publications influence what I decide to drive. My standards do not allow for that. I sometimes mention that I really want a next gen Mustang for my next car and that's still true. I could easily change my mind and say I want a Subaru WRX because it is just as fast, costs about the same, probably handles a little better, and is surely carries a higher reliability rating in CR, J.D., etc.. They're not the one's who will have to live with it so that will never happen. All I had to do was sit in one and I knew immediately that it wasn't for me. I felt like I was sitting in a leather lined economy car. The Mustang just has a better atmosphere to me. Maybe I'm just old fashioned or something. I would have even taken a Camaro over the WRX.
How many of you CR drones out there are going to buy a Hyundai when it's time to get a new vehicle? According to CR, a Hyundai is just as good as a Honda. Would you still buy one? Remember that Hyundai was at the bottom of their list just a few years ago.
What was Ford's number for problems per 100 last year? Wasn't it about twice that of this year's number? Doesn't it seem odd to anyone how they can lower that number so fast when they are building the same models at the same plants with the same workers using the same exact parts from the same suppliers?
Honda apparently has no influence.