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
Baggs - "All we know is that each one received 100 or more surveys."
Right. And that's all we need to know. Let us assume that one vehicle gets 10,000 surveys and another only gets the minimum 100 returns. The First vehicle has a greater population and therefore would be less likely to be skewed by the Porsche driver's secretary. That does not prove that the second set of surveys is unreliable. If the data were unreliable, then we would see wide variations. Once again, we don't. We do see consistency with other publications, though.
100 surveys is the number that CR has determined as "statistically significant". You don't have to agree with them, but the magazine is respected by the industry, consumers, and manufacturers. It seems that the only people who don't like the mag are the ones who own cars that are consistently rated below average.
In things like initial quality we do. No one else dares to rate/guess reliability that I know of.
The fact that the same people receive the surveys each year can have a lot to do with those consistent ratings. I'm not specifically talking about the Escape and CR-V either. The Escape has not had time to build any consistency yet. It was INITIALLY bad because of recalls and several other bugs but it seems to be coming along rather well.
Look at Hyundai, their CR rating graph would look like the Rocky Mtns. if you plotted it out right now. How do you explain a brand moving from last to nearly first in a few years like that? That's one magic snap of the fingers if you ask me.
"It seems that the only people who don't like the mag are the ones who own cars that are consistently rated below average."
Therefore they don't subscribe to the mag and don't get included in the survey. Who is filling out the surveys then?
I own a Civic, and still don't like their mag. It has not been the perfect little machine that CR claims it should be. Their data had nothing to do with the decision to buy it though.
"I was just noticing, the Escape has a 16 gallon gas tank and the CR-V has a 15.3 gallon tank.
Range - CRV 336/397 Escape 288/368
Looks like you could have saved the planet and had better range!"
I based my range on the nearly 26 MPG our Escape achieved last summer. The extra PSI in the tires that made that happen will almost certainly be added for our next trip too.
Although, if I were driving a CR-V I'd probably still be stuck trying to climb the winding mountain hills of the PA Turnpike right now. Which would also mean I'd still be on vacation. I guess that's not such a bad thing after all.
Look at Hyundai, their CR rating graph would look like the Rocky Mtns. if you plotted it out right now. How do you explain a brand moving from last to nearly first in a few years like that? That's one magic snap of the fingers if you ask me.
I thought we went over this already. Hundai moved up in problems per 100 vehicles over a one year span, not long term quality or reliability. Apparently the Escape remains lower on the CR list due to problems per 100 vehicles. Who knows?
I think it's time for you to explain away J.D. Power.
I believe that the Initial Quality studies are not the same as the Long Term Reliability studies. So I do not use them as a guide in reliability discussions. That said, it doesn't hurt that the CR-V scores high in that survey as well.
"Look at Hyundai, their CR rating graph would look like the Rocky Mtns. if you plotted it out right now. How do you explain a brand moving from last to nearly first in a few years like that?"
Well... Hyundai has been on par with the domestics for quite a few years. People's perceptions about them are about 10 years behind. More to the point, we're back to talking about a brand, not an individual car. During recent years, Hyundai has completely changed the design of pretty much every car in their model lineup. This is obviously not the same thing as one car jumping from last to first place.
BTW, CR ranked the Civic quite low for the first year of the redesigned model. It was about 20% below average. Since then, the car has been tweaked and its rating has moved back above the industry average (about 20% higher, IIRC). So at one time, CR did agree with your assessment of the Civic.
We already did that a while ago. Why don't you go back and find it instead.
"BTW, CR ranked the Civic quite low for the first year of the redesigned model. It was about 20% below average. Since then, the car has been tweaked and its rating has moved back above the industry average (about 20% higher, IIRC). So at one time, CR did agree with your assessment of the Civic."
Ours is a 96, not the new one thank God.
I really don't care what all of you think about the ratings provided by CR, IC, JD, etc. because none of it is proof of anything. It can't be used to prove whether my Escape is going to die before any CR-V. One can gather that an Escape might not last as long as a CR-V from their numbers, but that's it. The numbers will guide them, not lead them to the promised land.
I happen to work with several Ph.D. level statisticians who I'm sure would be willing to enlighten us on all of these stats if I ever get up the nerve to ask. Although, from what I've picked up so far while working here, all those numbers being used as proof around here are not really what the publisher's would like you to think they are.
I'm not talking about a brand baggs, I'm talking about a vehicle.
Civic v Focus
Escape v CR-V
They all sell high volumes in their respective classes. Numbers won't be exact but, they'll give you a darn good indicator.
I'm certain the stats are not perfect. But they're better than Scape's highly scientific 14 vehicle survey, my own 75K miles of flawless operation, or the opinion of someone's neighbor.
Varmit, lets set this straight. With folks like yourelf claiming the Escape/Trib are unreliable.. I took it upon myself to aproach folks that owned Escapes/Tribs. I spoke with between 25-30 owners of Escapes/Tribs of different model years and trims and asked them how they liked their vehicles. Not one had any of these horrific, catastrophic failures some like to speak so highly of. Besides, I stopped approaching folks about 4-5 months ago.. I am fully convinced the Escape/Trib are every bit as reliable as a CRV..
Also, some very hot, new competition for both the Escape and CRV is on the horizon. The Chevy Equinox with hurt both Escape and CRV sales...
You'll take the word of 20-30 people, but reject an organized survey based on more than 100... I'm a Board Director for an international CR-V and Element website with more than 10,000 registered members. We have members from every market where the CR-V is sold. I've been posting here at Edmunds since 1999. I've met with CR-Vers at sponsored events in New England, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Canada. I've organized my own events and I'm currently working on one in Ohio.
I've got more than 4 years and over 75,000 miles of flawless performance on my 1999 EX. I've never done anything other than scheduled maintenance. I've been off-road, through 24" of snow, off-road in the snow, on the beach, and driven solo from Boston to Florida and back in five days. I've hauled as many as five adults and their gear on ski trips, up north for white water rafting, and shopping in the outlets of Freeport. I got my CR-V on a Friday night and took four people camping in the mountains of New Hampshire the very next day. I've toted washing machines, dogs, 10' lengths of lumber, yard supplies, an elliptical rider, 10 trash barrels, and I've spent the night sleeping inside it on a bed made with the folding seats. I commute to work in it every day and have an overall average of 25 mpg.
You want to know why I use statistics when the discussion turns to reliability? Because there is no contest when we discuss personal experience.
Well said on your last post. Although I am a first time Honda owner (read: no Honda brainwashing that some speak of) I too spoke with countless Honda and domestic owners and there was an overwhelmingly more satisfied ownership experience shared by Honda owners than with owners of domestic vehicles. That said, I do believe that the 02/03 Escape is a very good vehicle for Ford. Good to see that they are moving in the right direction. My neighbor just traded in his 01 Escape for an 03 Honda Accord because of many little glitches as he describes it. Looks like none of these problems are occurring with the 02/03 model as there are many very satisfied owners on this board.
We have owned our 02 CR-V EX for five months now and have already done a 4000 mile 5 state trip with the family. Like varmint, we too spend time off-road, in mud, 15" of snow and averaged 25 mpg overall with a high of 28 mpg on the flats of north Texas. We are truly MORE satisfied with the CR-V than we imagined.
Reed
Rust
Rattles
Stalling
Cruise Control
Some of the people who were having the stalling problems seemed to laugh about it and considered them selves an "elite" group. Further reading had me wondering as one poster suggested that people with the stalling problem wouldn't talk about it or admit to it on the boards. Presumably so as to not make Ford quality and the Escape in particular, look bad.
varmit.. so you work for Honda? please send me the website at my e-mail address above.. thanks..
I can also bet my house I have had my Escape into more snow and in the great outdoors than you can dream of in your CRV... My Escape has proven to be 100% reliable for me.. and I too am "More than statisfied" with my Escape..
Kossman - Good luck with the 4Runner. It's a good choice. Those are great trucks if you need that sort of thing.
I've done a lot of research on the stalling issue because my wife was one of the "victims". Ford has released fixes for it and seems to have the problem licked. Finding a competent dealer to do the right thing is another story.
I've discussed the stalling issue, in great depth, on this thread and the problems thread. If anyone is trying to hide it like you say, they're crazy. It's a real thing, but it only seems to be an issue in a very low number of Escapes/Tributes. I've even seen a few 2003 owners posting, in another forum, that they've stalled too. This isn't surprising given that the NHTSA still has their investigation of it open.
It's been a dying issue in the past few months because everyone seems to be getting it fixed. Posts reporting stalls are very few and far between now. It wasn't like that a year or so ago.
I'm not sure where you saw rust as a problem, but I can't say that I've seen it any where else. That person may have left a chip or scratch unattended to which could easily lead to rust. A little wax goes a long way if you don't want to spend the time to touch it up with paint.
What's the problem with the cruise control that you saw? Never heard of that one either. Was it just one person on the problems board?
Some of the rattles are real. I'm currently experiencing the dreaded tail gate rattle. I believe a TSB has been issued to fix it. It seems a little of that white grease on the locking mechanism does the trick. Some people, who prefer the DYI method, have used electrical tape instead of the grease. I happen to have an extended warranty, so Ford is going to be fixing ours for a long time to come.
Some people have posted about a rattle coming from the passenger side seat/door. It usually turns out to be that the tray under the seat (if so equipped) slid out a little, or something in that tray, which they forgot was there, was moving around.
I've also read a lot of posts on the CR-V thread about an annoying head liner rattle in the 2002 CR-V's. Don't know what's been done about that.
So yes, the Escape does have it's minor annoyances (depending on how you rate the severity of the stalling), but most of us can easlily look past them because it's just so darn likeable.
But as my situation would dictate, I was in the market again for a car, and this time, Honda had pulled the torque and HP up on the CR-V. So I got one - a 2003.
I have both in my driveway as I type this. Which do I prefer?
The CR-V Primarily for this reason: the CR-V is a stick, the Escape (6 cyl.) is an automatic. I hate automatics (fortunately, my wife likes 'em - guess which one she is driving). I'm just happy a year behind the wheel of an automatic didn't completely ruin my driving. :-)
But I have to say, as much as the two try to play both sides of the truck/car platform, I would say that the Escape just slips over a bit more to the truck side and the CR-V to the car side.
You sit lower in the CR-V, it feels lighter, quicker, and generally more car-like. The Escape lifts you up, feels dense and solid, and is generally more truck-like.
Take your choice.
I have had no problems at all with the Escape - I change my own fluids ... it has needed nothing else. I have never heard of the cruise-control nor the rust problems. I have not had the stalling problem. Primary complaints? The rear hatch rattle, and soft side cladding (dings up easily from small stones and such). I prefer the leather seats to the CR-V's cloth seats.
Even the doors feel lighter on the CR-V, but I like the way they close - clunk. Other fit and finish aspects are nice. You can't beat a stick to really get the CR-V to dart around and this is what I like the best about the CR-V. Zip!
(Varmint, wow, do you have a life outside of posting to these groups? Your attitude often seems patronizing - but I got a CR-V anyway :-)
tidester, host
Could you comment( if you've noticed any real difference), on their relative performance with regard to highway driving and in any off-road jaunts.
Greetings from sunny Miami.
v/r
fig.
Just rambling...Nice to see everyone so passionate about their vehicles.
> drive the more trucky Escape
Yeah, well she doesn't drive "manuals", so, as you said, she didn't really have a choice.
> I think there's a definite trend for the ladies to
> like the trucky SUV's more and more.
Not my wife. She's too "green" to go for the big trucks. The Escape is even a little big for her tastes. With two and now a third child on the way, it was an SUV or a minivan (and I just can't abide by a minivan - they're clearly the station wagon of the 90's-now-00's - and like station wagons will be the demolition derby vehicle of choice in another decade).
What is it though with women and huge Chevy Suburbans though? Usually, they're wearing a baseball cap like their a guy and driving around with a big dog hanging his head out the window. Strange....
>Could you comment( if you've noticed any real
>difference), on their relative performance with
> regard to highway driving and in any off-road jaunts.
I don't mind confessing that I've never taken the Escape offroad and am likely never to take the other as well. We went to Death Valley in the Escape and took it on some unpaved roads (hardly "off road" though). As I mentioned, I didn't buy either for offroadworthiness, but rather because I didn't want a minivan (but I do still want to haul around camping gear and such).
But you know, it's subjective. Everyone will fell differently about the two (you can of course test drive the other vehicle). Before the Escape/CR-V, I had a Miata. I like cornering and to that end neither are good choices - although the CR-V feels like it can take cornering a little harder without danger of rollover (I think the 2002/03 models have a lower CG). The Escape, perhaps because you sit higher, worries me more in corners. I tell my wife though to always remember that the Escape stops phenomenally well and to favor the brake above trying to rapidly swerve to avoid an accident.
And because I had a Miata I like stiff "sport" suspensions. To this end both cars (trucks?) do well. No, I like the CR-V and the Escape both. Frankly, to argue between the two is borderline comical. Let's all beat up on something we all dislike. Like, minivans. Or Chevy Suburbans.
I know my Escape is not a "true 4x4". Fact is it still gets me into the mountains to skii, fish, and hike and bike.. The ability to CHOOSE 4x4 with a switch is an advantage over the CRV.
Looking through the paper I noticed a CRV for 18,444 3 of them. I was curious and called the dealership. These are FWD only!!?? it was another $1200 for the 4x4 and this was the bottom trim level I was told. Also notice as I see CRV's, what is up with no wheel covers?? or aluminum wheels?? This makes the CRV look yet more frumpy.. Aluminum wheels are 15" and only avialable on the EX model??
If you would read, I did say that I prefer your 4X4 switch! That is the major difference of these 2 vehicles one is more truck like than the other. Honda has always made it clear that it is only an AWD system to help get through the wet or slippery stuff! It does not pretend to be anything else.
Recently rented a Sorento for three weeks and was very impressed Much better than I thought.
...What is it though with women and huge Chevy Suburbans though? Usually, they're wearing a baseball cap like their a guy and driving around with a big dog hanging his head out the window. Strange....
That made me laugh. I think the bigger they are the safer they must feel..
The CRV and Escape are closely matched like you say, but I think they have sufficient differences to merit some of the arguments going on here, although I must say it is almost comical how some owners passionately defend their choices to the bitter end...
Glad to see you've had no problems with your CRV or Escape.
I haven't seen all the cabs in this town of ~4500, but for some reason, about half seem to be late model CR-Vs. And none of them have their spare installed. Maybe they're afraid that if they back into something, the spare will explode :-) Haven't spotted an Escape yet, but a couple of the cabs are Chevy Trackers.
Steve, Host
Nothing explodes at those cryogenic temperatures! They're worried that if they back into something, the spare will SHATTER! :-)
tidester, host
I have been meaning to mention something. In last weeks Motorweek that was on TV they did a review on the new 2003 Subaru 4x4 automatic. This vehicles comes with a 165hp and 166ft/lbs of torque 4cyl engine. They liked the Subaru but commented a couple of times on the lack of power. (The new turbo will help considerably.) How is it the CRV that weighs 3,287 lbs, the Subaru that weighs 3,135bls yet has more HP and torque than the CRV be less be less powerful?? Where does the CRV get this magic dust that makes it so powerful if even as powerful as a 200HP and 200ft/lbs of torque V6?? Doesn't add up CRV fans...
By the way, Honda 4 cyl. engines are more efficient than boxers Subarus.
All I will say is keep on fighting for those bragging rights but as most of the population will tell you......the winner still and only is.............................!!!!!!!!!!
Gearing and drivetrain efficiency.
The CR-V's shorter (numerically higher) gearing allows it to get to the fat of the power band faster. You're also looking at the peak numbers alone, and not where that power falls on the torque curve.
The more complex the drivetrain, the more opportunities for power loss due to friction or or other inefficiencies. The Soob's proactive AWD is great for distributing power, but it loses a little performance as a result.
You can see it in the performance test results. The Soob is lighter, has more power at peak, and (because it is smaller) has less frontal surface area to create wind resistance. Yet the CR-V accelerates better in performance tests.
*Some* of these are the same reasons why a 5 speed CR-V will accelerate as fast as the V6 Escape.
Step on the gas and don't let up. Are you telling me that the Escape's shiftpoints come before the redline?
"Are you telling me they go through gears in automatic??
I'm not sure what you are asking. If "go through gears in automatic" means reving to redline, then the answer is yes. See above.
I've never tried racing the Escape on the drag strip, but I doubt that the shift point is at redline. Remember, the peak HP occurs below redline, and peak Torque occurs at even a lower RPM. It probably wouldn't benefit the CRV to take it all the way to the redline either.
If your driving the Escape and CRV at the same RPM, and you step on the gas, the Escape has an advantage. The Escape has a higher torque and HP across the entire RPM range compared to the CRV.
The CRV gains a little back as manual transmissions are more efficient than automatics, but to keep up with the Escape, the CRV will have to be revved higher..
I don't know if the CRV has to be revved drastically higher than the Escape to keep up as some imply, but my experience with all passenger car 4cylinder motors (Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Ford, Dodge), have to be revved higher to gain the same feel and performance of the average 6cylinder engine.
A standard practice is to bring up the revs prior to starting from a stop. Not revving between gears.
Care to explain in more detail Scape?
Bess, a smaller engine will have to work harder than a larger engine to produce the same amount of power, however, a smaller engine will be able to do the "harder work" due to less reciprocating mass and lower internal friction, i.e. it can rev higher to do more work.
If you wish to compare 0-60 numbers posted in by the automotive press, you should acknowledge that all vehicles (automatics or manual shift) are pushed to achieve optimum results.
That means that automatics are "power braked", that is the transmission torque converter is preloaded against the brakes prior to launch. The transmission will either be held in gear to redline or allowed to shift on its own (at full throttle) depending on which technique yields better results.
With a manual tranny, the testers will typically rev the engine and either dump or slip the clutch, again depending on what works better for a given vehicle. They make several runs and try different shift points to maximize performance.
In all cases they willingly "abuse" the machinery in ways that a would cause most car lovers to cringe a bit. Their techniques are not compatible with mechanical longevity.
-james
Yes. Maybe not wide open, but some gas will be given to the engine to keep the RPMs high when shifting.
"With a manual tranny, the testers will typically rev the engine and either dump or slip the clutch, again depending on what works better for a given vehicle."
They will also "rev" the engine between shifts before dumping or slipping the clutch. Being able to do this keeps the engine at its performance sweet spot in all gears rather than having to build up to that power level. Auto's have no choice but to build power in between gears. "Heel and Toe" shifting is one way to do it but this method is more for road courses than drag strips because it involves the brake.
The difference in 0-60 times between the same vehicle with different transmissions can be quite significant. The ZX2 manual I used to own was tested in MT at about 7.8 seconds from 0-60. The auto version came in at about 9.5 seconds. That's quite a difference, and it probably would have taken about 30-40 more horses and/or lb/ft in that auto version to equal the manual's time. The only way I could ever come close to or equal MT's time was to keep the engine at about 3500 RPM's in between shifts. Too much would have spun the tires and slowed me down.
Our current Civic is the same way. You just have to do it a lot more often because there is no power below 3500 RPM. However, the CR-V does have some power down there which is good for every day driving.
These are two completely different animals being compared here. Oregonboy is right, we've been here before and I think it was agreed that they shouldn't be compared.
Think about it, the Escape with V6 weighs more, has bigger tires/wheels (more friction), and an auto tranny among other things that don't help 0-60 times. It's amazing that the CR-V doesn't beat it by more!
Actually, the weight of the two vehicles is pretty close.
What's really amazing is that the Escape with a HUGE 40HP/40FTLBS advantage over the CR-V doesn't absolutely blow away the CR-V with whatever transmission?? Just an insight on how efficient the CR-V's drive train is!
Actually, the weight of the two vehicles is pretty close.
What's really amazing is that the Escape with a HUGE 40HP/40FTLBS advantage over the CR-V doesn't absolutely blow away the CR-V with whatever transmission?? Just an insight on how efficient the CR-V's drive train is!
Beatfarmer & Baggs - Actually, the standard practice used by most magazines is to lift the throttle during shifts. Most magazines publish their testing methodology in a few paragraphs before their road tests summary (the chart at the back of the mag).
Clutch drops or powerbraking, as described by Oregonboy, are used when they work for the car. There are times when it does no good. This is often true with AWD cars. In the Edmunds testing notes, the driver remarks that changing shift points and launch techniques had little effect.
Reed4 - Ditto. The 5MT in the CR-V is an advantage, but that alone isn't enough to overtake a vehicle with 25% more power. Even the CR-V Automatic isn't far off from the Escape's times.
The CRV with a 5spd transmission weighs about 275lbs less than an automatic V6 Escape.
If the CRV drivetrain is so "effecient" then why does is only get 3mpg better in mileage?
Also, do a little test (I did) Load a CRV down with 5 adults, and about 300lbs of gear. Now, take it up into the mountains/hills/freeways.. try to pass and keep up with the traffic.. You will find out where the 40ft/lbs of torque along with 40HP advantage of a V6 is all about :-))