CR-V vs Escape

scape2

Average good Ford will last 130,000.. Please..
I know of many Fords that have lasted well over 130,000 miles. My moms 92 Escort had about 160,000! timing chain done, and 3 brake jobs just to name one. She bought a Focus, NOT a Civic in 2003 and her Focus has been flawless.
On CBS news tonight there was a small clip on American automakers makeing big strides in quality and reliability. American automakers do BETTER than the Euro's! LOL!@ in quality and reliabiltiy. Granted they don't beat the Japanese, but in no way are American brands miles behind like some want you so badly to believe. I am so glad this finally went out on national news. The word will spread and maybe Toyota and Honda will lowere their outragous prices!
Yes, my Escape has just about 40,000 trouble fee miles on it. I also owned a 98 Ranger that had just about 100,000 trouble free miles and it was still tight and ran fine. I was told this vehicle would breakdown and fall apart, and cost me thousands in fixes and repairs.... blah, blah, blah... I was also told my Escape would breakdown, fall apart cost me thousands in repairs..... blah, blah, blah...

scape2

There are other chat rooms on the net for Escape owners. There are owners reporting 80K or more on thier Escapes, with no problems. Man, these people must drive like crazy.
MPG.. Some in the CRV problems board were reporting bad gas mileage at one point. Another thing, the 5spd CRV is the only configuration that can brag about MPG advantage over the V6 Escape. If I remember right, the CRV automatic gets about 2MPG more than the Escape V6.. not much of a huge advantage. I'll take the V6 power anyday. Proved once again this weekend in a trip to Central Oregon, up over the Cascades, fully loaded down Escape, passing uphill! Keeping a steady 65 with no problem... Gotta love that V6!

smsuvundecided

I need more personal experiences like your's. I would love to own an Escape but the model I want is more then I want to spend (XLT 4WD). Also, I'm gonna test drive the new 4 cyl Escape this week. I'm not sure if it will be worth it getting the smaller engine.

I currently drive a 99 Ford Contour with a 2.0L and 56,300 miles. I've owned it for 4 years and not a single problem. All I have done is the regular maintenance, oil, filters, new brakes at 50k, radiator flush, etc.

I've honestly seen ten times more positive then negative comments on Edmunds for Ford model vehicles.

stevedebi

Scape2:
Sorry, I should have been more clear that I was stating MY experience. I got around 130K max. I could have probably put more work into the car and gotten more miles, but the engine was, as the mechanic said "tired". Never had a "tired" engine with a Honda. Also, I specifically said that my remarks did not include trucks.

Oh yeah, the CR-V automatic gets BETTER mileage than the manual transmission. And if I recall, the 5 speed is very close to the Escape in acceleration, despite having only 2.4L in the engine.

Undecided: If you test drive the 4 cylinder Escape, wait for the 2005 model, it has a larger engine. Best of luck on your search. I do suggest that you also try the various competitors: Saturn VUE (240 HP engine), Honda CR-V, Subaru Forester (XT is very powerful). All these vehicles are great, but each one has a different personality and best serves a different function. Get the one you like that suits your needs best. At these prices, be sure you drive all before you buy one.

smsuvundecided

Thanks for your input stevedebi,

A Saturn just doesn't appeal to me, in fact any GM vehicle with the exception of their Chevy/GMC trucks and SUV's. Saturn's don't have the quality and reliability. Subaru is to expensive. I'm sort of a miser....lol.

And, I knew about the 2005 Escape having the bigger 2.3L engine. I'm test driving one this week.

stevedebi

The Saturn VUE is using a Honda 3.5L Engine and 5 speed transmission this year. Might change your opinion of the mechanical reliability, though in general I agree with your opinion of GM products...

icvci

My post was a response to someone else. That's why part of it was italicized.

Thanks for your concern.

mikefm58

<<On CBS news tonight there was a small clip on American automakers makeing big strides in quality and reliability. American automakers do BETTER than the Euro's! LOL!@ in quality and reliabiltiy. Granted they don't beat the Japanese, but in no way are American brands miles behind like some want you so badly to believe. I am so glad this finally went out on national news.>>

Agree here. In the first few years, there isn't much difference (IMHO) between GM, Ford, Honda & Toyota, just to name a few manufacturers. But I do feel the gap widens as the vehicles age.

<<The word will spread and maybe Toyota and Honda will lower their outragous prices!>>

For what it's worth, I'm currently in the process of comparing the Toyota Tacoma Prerunner crew cab V6 with the Ford Explorer Sport Trac and comparably equipped with options I want, the Tacoma is cheaper, even after rebates. I just dread dealing with the Toyota salesman. They are a royal pain here in Orlando.

stevedebi

If a car is built to last a long time, it is logical that it will cost more - the manufacturer has to stay in business, and you won't be back in to buy another as soon as you would with an American brand.

Just a thought...

Kudos to the US manufacturers upping their quality!

kizhe

In Europe there is a common practice to exchange engine of the car, when it's run down.
In US you may get 4-cyl Chrysler rebuild engine (in Chrysler dealership) for about $1400, $1900 installed, warranty provided. Elsewhere even cheaper. But very few people go for it.

stevedebi

I lived in Germany for many years, and in general the bodies of the cars wore out long before the engines, due to the harsh weather. They offered 5 year rust perforation warranties - but watch out what happens in the 6th year!

explorerx4

'Take a look on the road and see how many 1980's model Hondas you see as compared to 1980's model Fords.'
i rarely see any of either, or any other brand in ct.

scape2

Find an 05 that has the 2.3 in the new Escape/Tribute. The new 2.3 is more powerful and gets better MPG than the present 2.0 Zetec. Are they offering the 2.3 with the 4WD?

icvci

Don't know about the Escape but, the Tributei (2.3) gets ELECTRONIC 4WD but, only with an auto tranny.

stevedebi

I see you are from the Northeast. Here in California the cars don't rust out (except maybe for beachfront people). So we get to drive them until their mechanicals are no longer working. Hence my remark about seeing a lot of Hondas from the 80's and 90's.

varmint

CT isn't exactly the used car capitol of the world. I see plenty of older vehicles here in MA and when I travel farther north. From my seat, I see plenty of old Tauruses (especially the wagons), Accords, and Camrys. Generally, the imports look like they are in better shape. Old trucks are a different story.

baggs32

According to Edmunds you can get the 2.3L I4 in the Escape with a 5-speed manual or an auto tranny.

stevedebi

According to the Ford website, the 4X4 with 2.3L Manual Transmission is only available in the XLS trim. Looking at the stats, I'm not sure it compares well with CR-V. It has less HP, less torque, less rear legroom, 6 CU Ft. less cargo room, Honda has cassette and CD, CR-V 4 wheel disk brakes (Escape has rear drums), CR-V has ABS and EBD (Ford site didn't specify), and the CR-V comes with a Moonroof (Ford site didn't specify if the XLS has this standard). Both will tow only 1500 lbs. Mileage is identical. Also, list price is $500 MORE than CR-V EX MT.

Advantages to Escape are the curtain airbags and stability system (optional), more front legroom (1 inch), larger fuel tank (1.6 gal more), and the curtain airbags. And let's not forget those incentives that Ford will probably provide...

With this year, the Escape loses the advantage of low range 4WD, replaced by an "intelligent" system that engages the 4WD as necessary.

Note that the CR-V EX with Automatic has better mileage than the Escape MT (or the CR-V MT, for that matter). Also, the CR-V EX MT has the shifter on the floor (always has been there).

Summary: The cars are very close. Drive 'em both and see which one fits your needs...

baggs32

"CR-V 4 wheel disk brakes (Escape has rear drums), CR-V has ABS and EBD (Ford site didn't specify)"

All 2005 Escape models have standard 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS and EBD. ABS is no longer an option and the drums are gone.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/features/

stevedebi

Found the ABS, but not the 4 wheel disc brakes on the referenced web page.

I was basing my comparison on the Ford website "compare models" page. Evidently it needs some updates on the braking systems...

In looking over their spec page, I see nothing to indicate the rear isn't still drum brakes (with ABS). You don't have to have discs to have ABS. Do you have a specific reference saying it has 4 wheel disc brakes?

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/compare/details/?vehicles- - =14677|14196|14236|13830

The page specifically says "BRAKES (REAR) - Drum"

Note that they have some erroneous data on the CR-V on this comparison page. I might expect that, but to have the wrong data for your own vehicle, especially when the data would make it a better value?

stevedebi

Sorry, I had the wrong model for the Honda EX MT - it is actually $900 MORE than the Ford. I was looking at the CR-V 4WD LX MT. Also should have mentioned that the CR-V EX has alloy wheels standard, whereas the Escape XLS has optional alloys.

Summary at MSRP:

CR-V EX 4WD MT - $900 MORE than Escape XLS 4WD MT

CR-V LX 4WD MT - $1500 LESS than Escape XLS 4WD MT

The comparison page for the CR-V EX 4WD MT and the Escape 4WD 2.3L XLS MT is:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/compare/details/?vehicles- - - - - =14677|14196|14233|13830

stevedebi

What you can learn from these comparison pages. I didn't realize that the CR-V was actually larger than the Escape, epecially in length...

But generally, except for rear leg room in the CR-V, the two vehicles are amazingly similar in dimensions.

arizonajoe

Guys - Four-wheel disc brakes are standard only on 4WD 2005 Escapes. The FWD 2005 Escape has rear drums.

stevedebi

Well, we were discussing the 4WD model. It looks like Ford honked up their web page, unless it only applies to trim levels above XLS.

I changed the comparison to Limited 4WD and it showed 4 wheel discs, but the 2WD Limited did indeed have rear drums. However, Both MT and AT models in the XLS 4WD trim also showed up with rear drums.

I would suspect that Ford would use discs on the 4WD model across the range, rear drums on 2WD. Can anyone confirm this with a URL?

CR-V, of course, has 4 wheel discs on all models...

I can't understand Ford not having a standard braking system on all 2005 Escapes. Is it really worth it for ford to gain the small savings of using the older braking system over the savings of parts standardization that would come with having only disc brakes?

It seems like having multiple rear brake configuration would add to the complexity of building and maintaining the various configurations. Not to mention making it really difficult for the consumer to figure out what kind of braking sysem is in the vehicle he/she wants to consider.

I supposed that might be considered a plus for the CR-V side - it is easier to figure out what the car has for equipment... on the other hand, ABS and EBD aren't available on the CR-V LX model at all. So score one for Escape, for having this standard on all trim levels. And the game goes on...

stevedebi

Is the XLT 4WD, which comes with the 3.0L six on the Escape. The XLT is the first model available with the power moonroof and the CD/Cassette/Clock Combo.

Escape price with similar options to CR-V EX:

MSRP $25675.

CR-V EX AT: MSRP $23000

But really these are two different cars - Ford doesn't let the XLS trim line increase the creature comforts to the CR-V level. By the time you add the 6 cylinder engine & etc on the base XLT Escape, the mechanicals don't match (CR-V, of course, only has a 2.4L 4 cylinder). The Escape 2.3L is only available on the XLS.

All of this makes direct comparisons difficult. The only clear stand out is that if you intend to do any serious towing, get the Escape with 6 cylinder engine. But the mileage suffers... 20/25 vs 22/25. Interesting that the specs on the V6 and V4 mileage are so similar, considering the horsepower. Looks to me like the V6 is the package to choose on the 2005 Escape.

varmint

Those lists are almost never correct. It doesn't matter which manufacturer is responsible for the page. I remember the Honda page once said that the Forester didn't have 4 wheel drive. Which is actually true, as Subaru uses AWD, but that's playing semantics a bit too close to the chest.

My guess on the drum brakes would be weight. When you add a rear diff to the AWD model, you add weight to the back end. Without much weight on those wheels it doesn't matter what kind of brakes you have.

stevedebi

>Those lists are almost never correct.

Yeah, the page lists the Escape as having 4WD while the CR-V doesn't (but the CR-V drive train is listed as AWD). Technically true, but still false. Actually, since they lost the low range locking capability for 2005, I would think that this year they should include the Escape in the "AWD" rather than "4WD".

I think they fudge the numbers a bit to, shall we say, "mislead" the uninformed consumer.

However, I am astonished that Ford didn't get their OWN model correct. What does that say about Ford quality control? ;-)

explorerx4

still stand by the fact that i don't see very many 80's era vehicles around here. you do see more in the summer when people bring out their hot rods. cold weather salt and tough roads take their toll.
btw, i know the '05 escape(limited model) has 4 wheel disks. just started talking to the dealer about an '04 for the wife.

stevedebi

Well, since the salt & etc take their tolls, perhaps super long term reliability (which takes over 6 years to accumlate) is not such a hot issue in the Northeast as here in the West. My sister in law put a quarter million miles on her '85 Civic before she sold it and bought a new Acura.

BTW, ask your dealer about the XLS trim for 2005 - does the 4WD have discs all around?

icvci

According to Edmunds you can get the 2.3L I4 in the Escape with a 5-speed manual or an auto tranny.

That's stupid. Why would they offer a manual on the 2.3 Escape but not the Tribute? Mazda's whole thing is supposed to be sport. It's just like Ford to give the shaft to Mazda.

Mazda is the last ones to get incentives too. They'll build 3 cars off a Mazda frame and price them so Mazda can't compete. *&%!@#"!!!

stevedebi

What is sporty about a 2.3L engine vs a 3.0 liter engine? To me it makes perfect sense that Mazda didn't offer it on the Tribute.

It also isn't offered on the Escape Sport trim level.

varmint

"Sport" does not always equal more power. I'd bet that the lighter 2.3L Tribute handles better than the heavier V6.

icvci

Many press reviews of the Mazda6i actually lauded the 2.3 for being lighter and a better match for the suspension.

stevedebi

since the Tribute isn't offered with the 2.3L. But how much lighter can two cylinders be?

scape2

2.3 will be offered in the Tribute soon after the Escape. I had read on the internet the reason why the 2.3 did not come sooner was Ford/Mazda had to get production up. This 2.3 is very versatile and is found in the popular Ranger/B-Series trucks along with multiple cars. This is a Mazda designed engine as far as I know. I am just bummed Ford did not up the HP/Torque to match its competitors. 153HP sounds so much less than 160. Anyone have any new news on the 3.5 V6 Ford may put in the Escape in the 2006/7 model years?

icvci

I've got the 2005 Tribute brochure right in front of me. The Tributei has the 2.3l the S has the 3.0l. Looks like two cylinders equal 74lbs..

Weight

3.0
auto 2WD - 3322
auto 4WD - 3482

2.3
man 2WD - 3181
auto 2WD - 3260
man 4WD - 3346
auto 4WD - 3408

stevedebi

The difference is about 60-70 lbs additional weight, which is more than accounted for by that extra 47 HP. About 40 lbs per cylinder

Type 3.0 2.3 Difference % of Total
Auto 2WD 3322 3262 60 lbs 1.8 %
Auto 4Wd 3482 3408 74 lbs 2.1 %

But considering the small mileage advantage to the 4 cylinder (2 MPG better, only in town, same on the highway), I wonder why anyone would buy it over the 6 cylinder, which has far greater towing capacity, HP, and torque.

Interestingly, the 4WD is pretty heavy compared to the CR-V. Sounds like those extra 40 HP wll be pulling about 135 extra lbs (CRV EX AT is 3347 lbs), cutting into the performance advantage somewhat...

varmint

Yes, the 2.3L is a very solid engine. Decent power delivery, economy, and emissions for a variety of applications. I think the Honda and Toyota 2.4L engines are better for this class of vehicle, but the 2.3L is still pretty good.

Scape - Ford is going to let the Escape go without a FMC through 2007?

Ivcvi - I'm sure the "two cylinders" don't weigh all that much. The engines themselves are probably within a dozen or so pounds. However, all the hardware that needs to be beefed up to accommodate the V6 probably contributes to the difference.

Personally, I'd go for the 5 speed 2.3L.

scape2

is an FMC?
Went and had my brakes checked on my Escape. There had been some discussion about Escapes/Tribs going through brakes/rotors and costing a fortune. At about 40K miles on my Escape I still have about 50 percent of my brake pads left on the rear and about 40 percent on the fronts! Rotors looked great too... I guess I will be looking at a brake job at about 50-60K. Not bad for all the towing I do....

stevedebi

Ford Motor Corporation.

dondada

Full Model Change?

baggs32

" Why would they offer a manual on the 2.3 Escape but not the Tribute? Mazda's whole thing is supposed to be sport. It's just like Ford to give the shaft to Mazda."

You have to remember that the 2.3L in the Mazda6 and Mazda3 both produce more HP due to Mazda's addition of VVT. So I think the better question is, why didn't Mazda add that head to the 2.3L block in the Tribute too?

After all, the Focus uses the 2.3L block with the standard Ford head while it's cousin, (Which is becoming more distant) the Mazda3, gets the more powerful VVT head on the block. I realize that the two cars are built on separate lines (In different countries too for that matter) while the twins are built on the same line, but how hard could it be to have one more engine on the twins' line?

I think Mazda should have fought a little harder for that one.

varmint

FMC = Full Model Change

stevedebi

Yes, in context it was Full Model Change, rather than Ford Motor Company. Or is it that Ford is in need of a full model change?

icvci

According to Mazda's brochure, the 2005 Tributei gets rear drums.

davem

I'm deciding between the CR-V and the Escape. I've test driven the CR-V 2 times, and both times felt as if I had horrible visibility out the rear-view mirror. I didn't have this issue with the escape. Seems odd since both look so similar from the outside. Anyone have similar issues?

carguydc

I've driven both and definately prefer the Escape. (However, to be honest, I don't recall rear visibility being an issue with the CRV.) To me, the Escape offered superior power, luxury, and was a more "fun to drive" vehicle. Plus, I thought the CRV setup (shift lever and parking brake) was too goofy...

Just my $.02

timhonda

The CRV setup (with shift lever and parking brake) might be too goofy to some people, but to me, it's clever. With the folding table, that makes more floor space. It just meets my needs as others' needs differ. For the rear visibility, I took off the middle head rest on the rear seat. Don't know if it helps. I do like Escape, but I chose the CRV.

icvci

My wife was unhappy with visibility out of our CR-V at first too. It just takes some adjusting. (She is VERY happy with it now.) If you don't think you can get over it, don't buy it. Being comfortable in a vehicle is very important.

bshel

Going from an Accord to the V, I had to adjust to the visibility - but it doesn't take long. The salesperson took off the V's rear middle head rest during one of my test drives, so I was aware of the view issue. The V is a great vehicle, and I am impressed when comparing it to the Escape in many ways. The Escape is a good looking suv and has greater towing capacity, so it depends on what you need it for. I am very happy with the V and think the parking brake is very convenient and hidden (I have a manual trans - so no issue with the dash mounted auto lever).