Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
They both worked for me.
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/imcompc1.asp
I opened two browser windows with the same link as above and I compared the 2002 CRV with large vehicles such as the full size trucks and mid size SUV's and the 2002 CRV had less INTRUSION then anything I compared it to!
Nothing even came close except for the MDX. Way to go Honda, what a great company for safety and for the environment!!!
That kind of comparison is misleading though. Those vehicles weight as much as 1,000 lbs more than the CR-V and might crush it mano-a-mano.
First of all your comparison is ONLY for OFFSET category.. Everyone knows the Escape finished 4 out of 5 stars for the OFFSET frontal crashtest. 5 STARS for everything else. EVERYONE didn't know how poorly the CRV did in the IIHS rear crashtests. I'm finding more people around the internet questioning this and NOT knowing about this test! Love the information Highway!
How did the Forester get into this room? Forester is a station wagon knock-off. I agree crashtests are important, but so is performance, style, comfort ect.. There is more to a vehicle than crashtests..
Yes the Escape has more HP/Torque, towing capacity, payload capacity, max payload capacity, GVWR, ground clearance...
The IIHS offset crash test involves driving the car into a barrier impacting only half of the frontal area. That is why it is called the "offset" crash. The results are measured with four ratings; Poor, Marginal, Average, and Good. The IIHS does not use stars to indicate performance.
The CR-V just earned the best score for any vehicle in it's class. The Escape is currently at the bottom of the ratings. Here's another link.
The NHTSA uses two completely different tests. One is a full frontal impact. This involves driving the car into a barrier, which hits the entire front end of the car. Hence the term, "full frontal". This test is reported with a 5 stars rating system.
The fact that the Escape earned 4 stars on one side and five on the other, does not mean that the test is an offset test. It's just different data for two seating positions.
The NHTSA also uses a side impact test. This is also reported using the same five star system. It includes one rating for the front seat (driver) and one for the rear seat (behind the driver).
Both NHTSA scores may be found here at this link
The CR-V and Escape both score reasonably well on the NHTSA test. The CR-V bests the Escape by only one star. However, the CR-V bests the Escape by a rather huge margin in the IIHS offset test.
What about the one of the consumer complaints of the Escape I listed? That one is not very good. It is obvious the Escape has a lot more problems than the CRV and yes there is something wrong with the rear end for sure....I agree BUT I will take that before all of the mechanical problems any day!
Scape your little argument of the back bumper is not good enough to prove to me anything! There are soo many major problems with your vehicle that it is incredible enough they are allowed to sell it. One other thing that I don't get and that is you say that you are an engineer by profession, if that is true you should be able to recognize something that is well built but you always stick to your point that the CRV is not a good vehicle and that surprises me. They are invloved in so much racing and technology that surpasses Ford by a mile and you can't even acknowledge that! I don't get it. If it was not for my own personal experience with the Tribute, I may not be defending my point so strongly but I experienced 3 of the 72 problems listed on my link in only 2 days of driving and they were all major with 2 towings! Maybe you are a Wal-Mart greeter and just don't want to tell us the truth.
I rent about 20 vehicles a year for my work and never had I been so let down by a car and the service and I have rented everything from Kia to Hyundai. I always use this time to evaluate cars. I am sorry people but I am entitled to my opinion. I have never really been the kind to read a magazine and go buy the car the next day. You always do your own evaluation based on your needs....mine do not include massive towing or a 200hp V6. The power was the only thing going for it in my opinion but what good is that since I drive a 2001 146hp CRV? Of course any V6 would be more powerful than mine BUT I love it cause it is built like a tank. Power and towing are nice but what counts is a vehicle that will not let you down and if yours is fine so far.....good for you but you only have 10000 miles on it....give it time. Some engines have blown 3 hours after leaving the dealer...never heard of that before!
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
A long time ago I asked you for some links that show all of us the major advantages that the CR-V holds over the Escape. I'm still waiting for you to post them by the way. Someone else did post some small advantages in a previous message for you, but they weren't what I was looking for because they've been argued before.
Anyway, since you had to ask which Escape trim level best compares to the CR-V EX, I'm not expecting too much.
Since you seem to base your judgments on personal experiences (stated in post 1160), how do you know so much about the 2002 CR-V if you drive a 2001? You totally rip the Tribute apart because you say you had some problems with a rental?! Now I know a lot of people rent cars to experience a more "personal" test drive, but again, you don't know who drove it before you or what they did to it. Find me a good friend or relative of yours that has had the same problems and maybe we can all take you a little more seriously.
You are right about being allowed to express your own opinions though. I can sit here and type "THE CR-V IS CRAP!" ten thousand times too. But by reading these boards and doing a little more research, I've found that it isn't as bad as I originally thought. The Escape still rules though!
Do you see what I'm getting at?
As if you threw some major unknown at people...the only hornets you disturbed are the ones that aren't going to let you blow issues out of proportion without balancing your statements.
-First of all your comparison is ONLY for OFFSET category.. Everyone knows the Escape finished 4 out of 5 stars for the OFFSET frontal crashtest. 5 STARS for everything else.
Wrong testing group chap....
-EVERYONE didn't know how poorly the CRV did in the IIHS rear crashtests.
Yes, we did, and about a week before you "broke the story". And in our BALANCED commentary we made note of the fact that while this test really doesn't compare to the real world very well, the results are still unacceptable and need to be addressed by Honda.
-I'm finding more people around the internet questioning this and NOT knowing about this test! Love the information Highway!
What caves are you digging in? I have never ONCE in my short life heard ANYBODY ask before purchasing a vehicle "So how did the vehicle do in a 5 MPH rear impact test, because that's going to make up my mind." This is a prime example of you blowing things out of proportion.
-How did the Forester get into this room? Forester is a station wagon knock-off.
People looking for our size vehicles consider the Forester in the same class. (even though it is more wagon than SUV, but those lines are being blurred by things like the AllRoad)
-I agree crashtests are important, but so is performance, style, comfort ect.. There is more to a vehicle than crashtests..
Hmmmm, doesn't sound like you have that opinion when the CRV does worse than the Escape in a bumper crash test....
-Yes the Escape has more HP/Torque, towing capacity, payload capacity, max payload capacity, GVWR, ground clearance...
Lets put that in proper perspective for new readers, shall we?
"The V6 Escape has more HP/Torque, towing capacity, payload capacity, max payload capacity (saying the same thing twice really..), GVWR (and a third time).
I think you're wrong on the ground clearance but I don't have the numbers in front of me. CRV is 8.1"
I'm done trying to make an engineer understand how 4' isn't much difference when it comes to stopping. You know it, you just don't want to admit it. Yes the Escape stops 4' sooner and that is an advantage for the Escape. I'm saying it's not a big one. A BIG difference is comparing a GOOD rating to a MARGINAL rating. Where have I seen that?......
"A BIG difference is comparing a GOOD rating to a MARGINAL rating. Where have I seen that?......"
Again,
A single crash test rating only matters if all vehicles crashed that way in the real world.
The CR-V used in the test proved to be stronger that day, but it still may very well have a weak point that the Escape does not have. Move both vehicles an inch or two to the left or right and you might see different results. I'm not making this up either, every vehicle will react differently depending on what it hit, what angle it hit at, etc.. Where's the "oops I fell asleep and hit a utility pole" test?
Good vs marginal IS a big difference when you look at it the first time. Once you think about it a little, it doesn't seem to be that big any more. The same goes for the bumper bash because not everyone will back straight into a pole like they did in the test.
Just drive safely and hopefully you will never have to find out what I mean.
But if you still want to go by numbers alone, both vehicles performed very well in two of the three tests that have been discussed here. So we have a draw then?
4 feet is quiet a distance.. Like I said it can mean the difference between you crashing your vehicle, killing yourself or someone else, or causing thousands of dollars in damage to property or vehicle. Keep on making excuses Honda folks.. the Escape stops better than the CRV.
Ground clearance for the Escape is 8.5". Edmunds has this wrong. They list the P235 16" tires yet list 7.8" for clearance. WRONG.. this is for the P225 15" tires on the Escape XLS..
because of the much softer brake pads on the Escape. They shower the front wheels with brake dust. They will also wear out much quicker. But, yes they give the Escape good stopping abilities.
The 4' difference can also be easily made up by putting better dry braking tires on the CRV.
-crash tests
We will have to wait for the gov't frontal & side tests for the 2002 CRV. If they are all 5-star, it can safely be presumed that the CRV is a noticeabley safer vehicle. In another year or two, after hard data is in, we will know even more.
The "draw" was to show how pointless it is to only look at numbers. There is a lot more to read behind those numbers.
Here's the link to the offset test description:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/offset.htm
They don't mention whether or not their crash represents the majority of crash situations. They just seem to be looking at crashes from a different angle, i.e. rating structure strength (offset - IIHS) as opposed to restraint strength (full-frontal - NHTSA). I find it hard to believe that hitting a collapsible wall at +-40 mph is representative of most accidents.
Consider this though, some vehicles have their engine blocks offset to one side. If they crash every vehicle on the same side (40% of the vehicles width - driver's side), wouldn't you think those vehicles that have more of the block in the way would perform better?
I'm not saying that this holds true with these two vehicles though. The CR-V does have a smaller engine thus leaving more room for more structural components. That's great for this test, but what if you do hit a utility pole? I see those types of accidents all the time on the road and on the news. They didn't test the middle of the vehicles, so how do we know that one or both of these vehicles won't be cut down the middle like a hot knife through butter?
Maybe we need a "Crash Tests: Are They Structurally Sound?" discussion? I'm just throwing things out there for all of you to think about.
Anyhoo.. don't fill the board too much. I hope I don't come back to 500posts! :-))
-Consider this though, some vehicles have their engine blocks offset to one side. If they crash every vehicle on the same side (40% of the vehicles width - driver's side), wouldn't you think those vehicles that have more of the block in the way would perform better?
Actually, the engine block in the way would reduce crumple zone area so I would expect it to be worse. Besides that, many manufacturers have designed the engine bays to eject the engine out the bottom in case of frontal collision to reduce injury to the passengers.
-That's great for this test, but what if you do hit a utility pole? I see those types of accidents all the time on the road and on the news. They didn't test the middle of the vehicles, so how do we know that one or both of these vehicles won't be cut down the middle like a hot knife through butter?
Nothing does. I'm saying in regards to this test representing a head on type collision between two vehicles of equal mass, the CRV is the better performer. I can't say anything about how well it does wrapped around a tree because nobody runs that test willingly. I don't think you can discount the results of this test because there are other ways to crash a vehicle.
Obviously they both may suffer if a building were to fall on them or they were T-Boned by a Tractor Trailer. In regards to the data we have present (which is all we can work with) the CRV has proven to be the safer vehicle. (even though it stops 4 feet later..=P)
I'm not saying people don't have to think, I'm saying you can't discount the documented advantage of the CRV when put through the SAME TEST as the Escape.
Have a great Vacation Scape!!! (and stop hoping something goes wrong with the Accord so you have more things to write about!!
That does not mean that offsets are the "majority" of accidents. There are thousands of types of accidents. Each one is probably less than 1% of the total. The offset test might only represent 5% of the total, but be still be the largest single type of accident.
Baggs - Changing the test slightly may create different results, but I seriously doubt that the difference would be great enough to reverse the final outcome.
For example: The CR-V in the UK is sold with a smaller 2.0L engine, similar to the one used in the Honda Stream (156 hp and 141 ft-lbs). When that vehicle was recently tested by the Euro NCAP, it garnered results similar to those of its American cousin.
Also, you are mistaken about the position of the engine. The engine is a liability in high speed impacts. That heavy block needs to drop down and out of the way. It does not offer protection as you suggested. It becomes a projectile that is pushed backwards into the passenger compartment. Most cars are designed with engine mounts and structural supports that allow the engine to drop under the car during an intense frontal impact.
CanadaTwo - The 2002 CR-V has been tested in the NHTSA tests. It scored five stars for both front passengers in the full frontal test. It also scored 2 five star ratings for the front and rear occupants in the side impact test. For the side impact, they tested a CR-V both with and without side airbags. Though the one with side airbags scored better in the nitty-gritty, both were safe enough to earn five stars for all occupants.
I stand by my original assessment. The CR-V and Escape both seem safe enough according to the NHTSA tests, but the CR-V stomped the Escape in the IIHS test.
Baggs and Varmint are correct. 50% of Fatal accidents are from head on collisions. (per IIHS) The point I was trying to make and didn't make clearly is that the majority of HEAD ON collisions are of the offset type. I have no data to back that up, but human nature is to try and steer away so I think its safe to assume most head on crashes are offset.
As I told you before (you must learn to read the whole post) the Explorer hit me on the high side of the door BECAUSE it was a 4X4 vehicle. If it would have been lower, I would of received much more damage. Also, he thrusted me forward when it hit probably reducing the impact somewhat whereas he had to absorb the full hit. This is what the insurance evaluator told us so I think he knows more about this than you or I.
By the way, have a nice vacation and be safe...afterall, this is all for fun. I would love to have a beer with someone like you because you stick to your guns and I like that. Too bad we live so far apart...could be interesting!
I am not saying this vehicle is crap but close because of the experiences around me. I am sure there are some that have nothing wrong and that is great. The reason why I know so much about the 2002 CRV is because I know so many people that have them and I am also a big Honda fan BUT that has nothing to do with whether or not I like the Escape ONLY because of what I experienced PERIOD!
I bought my 2001 in January because I got a deal that I liked and I don't need the extra power. I've got leather, wood, 6 CD changer ......and that is what was important to me not how fast I could get between stop signs. I almost bought a Santa Fe cause it is very good. I rented it 3 times and tore the crap out of it without a hiccup! I had the Tribute 4 hours and it left me on the side of the road...TWICE in 2 days!!! I am sorry but if that happened to you or anyone else on this board, I am sure that you would not defend your point so heavily. I am not happy that Honda screwed up the back door and I wish it would open in the proper direction but for me it is the best and that is what counts. There is no such thing as a perfect vehicle but some are better built than others and I think the Honda make (and Toyota) have an advantage!
We are discussing the Honda CR-V and the Ford Escape on this board. Every time I ask you to do that, you reply with some Honda is better than Ford nonsense. I never said that Honda's overall quality is better than Ford's. It always has been and it still is for now.
I'm not saying your rental Tribute was absolutely tampered with, but it only takes about ten seconds to ruin a transmission/engine no matter what the mileage on the odo is. That's why I will never base a vehicles performance on a rental test drive.
By the way, calling the trim in your CR-V "wood" is a bit of a stretch. I believe "plood" is the scientific term. Some of that stuff looks pretty good though.
davegh,
Moving the vehicle over a couple of inches was a hypothetical scenario. A couple of feet is probably more realistic.
varmint and freeber,
Yes the engine is a liability in cases where it does not drop, but if it is designed to drop it can help. I should have stated this before to explain myself. I wrecked an '87 Taurus LX into a (four inch diameter I believe) chain link fence gate pole at about 45 mph a while back when I was a stupid sixteen year-old. Anyway, the engine did drop due to the break away mounts it rested on. When it dropped, it hit the frame on the way back and prevented the pole from slicing further through the engine bay. It didn't prevent us from being killed or anything like that (the seat belts did that), but it just might have saved us had we been going faster. Believe me, I'm not making this up, the mechanic was my girlfriend's father and he showed me how this and the crumple zones worked to save our lives. He also wanted to show me why it was going to cost so much to fix. Lesson learned I guess.
I also agree that the CR-V was the better performer in this particular test. No one can argue with that, but that does not necessarily mean it is, as hondaman would say, a "tank". freeber tells us that human nature is to steer away from an oncoming car and I agree. However, the IIHS's offset test does not add that factor into the equation. If the two vehicles are turning away at the point of impact, chances are they are going to rotate around thus reducing the "head-on" force of impact. In this situation the two vehicles will push in on each other, and then out to the side.
So is the IIHS offset test representative of the majority of accidents? I personally don't think so. Should we use it in determining the safety of a vehicle? Sure, obviously the CR-V has more structural strength in their type of accident, but I'd be willing to bet that the opposite is true for other tests. We'll never know that for sure though.
I vote for the Freelander, even though I own the CRV.
I have posted many items about the Escape and the one about consumer complaints concerns the Escapes reliability and many times this issue has been brought on the board so it was relevant to show the comparison of the 2 for the same model year!
Don't agree with your rental excuse. As I said before, I rent at least 20 times a year and have done so for many years and never had a problem until that one vehicle. many times, I get cars that have over 20000km's and never experience a problem. I don't believe that in 300 km's a person can destroy a vehicle because I am sure that it was used in normal driving on raods where there are police so that does not pan out.
I know you don't like any of my comments because I am hard on this particular vehicle but I don't care about that. My experience was just that...."mine" and it was very bad and upsetting. What I really don't understand is why this problem exists in so many cases?
As for the links, everyone counts as it is all relevant concerning the particular vehicle. Most of you argue over which one brakes 4 feet better or a crash test at 5 mph but I think the most important factors of a vehicle are reliability and safety and that has been proven in 2 of my recent links and no more are needed for now.
Varmint, I would like to comment on your knowledge of the Honda product and your great way of making interesting posts to read. How is it that you know so much about vehicles? I envy you.
That said, I don't want something I SAID to get the host in trouble with his superiors so I'm reposting the snipet so it's on the books and people don't wonder what the big gap was in the conversation. Sorry Tidester, I know you're just doing you job, but I still think this is wrong.
Your specific post has violated our Member Conduct regarding “Masked” Profanity. "You may not submit Postings that are indecent, profane (including masked profanity), obscene,..."
Your post:
#1166 of 1176 Now I'm scratching my head (and yes I'm -------- --) by freeber Jul 10, 2002 (02:36 pm)
I see your point baggs, I just don't know how much water it holds. I agree one test cannot represent EVERY possible situation, but isn't the offset crash designed to replicate the more serious head-on type collision that causes the most injuries? My understanding of the Insurance tests were that they were better indicators of real world performance and they were done by the insurance industry because the NHSA tests weren't stringent enough. (i.e. the insurance companies needed better information to know how to base their insurance rates) I would be shocked (yes shocked) if the Escape performed better if you shift it over a few inches left or right. Same for the CRV. As was stated before, they can't test for every situation so the test for the most common.
Well, I'll have to revisit that. Now that I think about it, I think that test is actually
designed around the type of accident that has the highest number of fatalities involved....I'll look into that.
I think the complete opposite is true regarding the GOOD vs MARGINAL rating. When
first looked at, they don't sound very different. When you look deeper at what makes up the ratings you see there is a large gap between them. The CRV received 'good' in all areas of the test while the Escape actually scored one 'poor' in it's marginal rating. That means a high probability of serious injury. The marginal ratings aren't much better.
Lets not forget all these rating are compared directly to other vehicles IN THEIR
CLASS. The insurance tests say compared to the rest of the vehicles in the Escapes class, it's offset saftey rating is MARGINAL while the CRV is the BEST IN CLASS.
We can all spend alot of time trying to minimalize the advantages of each others
vehicles. I give scape the 4 feet advantage, but I don't think it makes a good case for buying a vehicle based on the fact that 4 feet isn't that much of a difference based on the speed I will be traveling those last 4 feet.
I hope none of us ever have to deal with ANY of these tests. My father works in the
Insurance industry and my wife was in a near fatal accident when we were in High School so I KNOW the damage that can be done. That's why I put so little stock in 5 MPH bumper tests because all of us are going to walk away from a 5MPH bump into a pole or even some idiot who hit the brakes too late. I put my stock in whats going to happen at serious speeds and serious conditions. I think the CRV has the upper hand on that one. (at least for now)
So I don't think its a draw. That's just me. I do agree with you that we all need to drive
safely and hope we never really put these tests to the test.
If you and scape ever do get together for a fireside chat, please film it for us to watch. Just make sure you have plenty of film on hand, it's going to be a long night.
Anyone want to bet on who breaks first?
And my wife thought I bled Ford blue. I'll have to try and get her to read some of this stuff. Maybe she'll think I'm semi-normal again.
It's true that the data they find is not the whole picture. However, if I'm going to bet my life/health on a vehicle, I'm going to pick the one with a better track record.
Daveghh - I like the Tribute as well. It has both good proportions and nice styling. IMHO, the Escape has the same tidy proportions, but the details are bland. The CR-V is shaped a little too thick, but it has more interesting details.
Hondaman - I've been a participant here and in other forums for three years. I also read auto news and reviews. After a while, you pick things up.
You're right, and I'm not trying to disprove the CR-V's test data. It's just that a lot of people tend to believe everything they read and then take action based upon that information. I learned my lesson a long time ago that you have to sit down and think things out first.
For example, I read that the CR-V did very well in the IIHS's offset crash test. That's great for the CR-V and all of its loyal fans because now they can go out and preach to the world about how safe the CR-V is (magazines included). Then I thought about it and said to myself "Self! (that's for you Emeril fans out there) Wait a minute, I've crashed before, and it didn't go anything like that.". So then, are all crashes exactly like theirs? Definitely not. How often do those types of crashes occur? We don't know for sure. Did they strap the dummy in the same way, or did it move on the way down the track? We don't really know, but either could have happened. [Insert other similar questions here:] Why then am I to believe that any vehicle is safer overall than another just because of one simple little crash test? Now you see how a programmers mind works. Sick isn't it?
As you said before, there are probably thousands of unique crash scenarios. Thanks to the NHTSA and the IIHS we know exactly how our vehicles will react in three of them. Based on the same data, we can also guess how they will react in many more. As long as the thing doesn't look like a crushed beer can after the test, I'm willing to take a chance on it because I'm probably never going to experience the exact same crash.
Since when did we start trusting the government so much anyway?
hondaman,
I have to apologize about asking you for the comparison links. When I saw muckyduck's name above I realized that it was he I requested the links from. I still want to see the scape/hondaman fireside chat video though.
baggs32 - "Are you being a smart moose?"
Bullwinkle - "I don't know, there's a first time for everything!"
Natasha and Boris are the real problems.
But Duddley Do Right will come to save the day!
Stay tuned for previews of our next exciting show, titled "Comparison links" or "Will the forest cover the snow and will scape take a bite out of the curds and way, er, I mean, curves and highway"
Opinions of quality from you or any other publication are not welcome either. Feature content and Specifications are the name of the game here.
I don't know that scape really intended for this board to be used in such a manner. But varmint has tried to turn us all in that directions many times without much success. I just thought I'd try and help him out a little.
Boris: "Congratulations squirrel, you are the proud owner of a dead Escape"
Rocky: "But you told me it would be fine"
Boris: "It is fine. Finally dead!"
Natasha: "Boo hoo hoo!"
Rocky: "Hold it, Bullwinkle! That sounds like a lady in distress!"
Bullwinkle: "So?"
Rocky: "Gee, didn't you ever read the Hero's Handbook?"
Bullwinkle: "I can never get past the picture of General MacArthur on the cover."
Rocky: "Well, Chapter Two says we should always help ladies in distress."
Bullwinkle (to Natasha): "Hi, there, lady! Are you in distress?"
Natasha: "This dress, that dress, who cares? I'm distraught!"
Bullwinkle (to Rocky): "Do we help ladies in distraught?"
You of course understand that Natasha is on the side of a road, with her Escape doing what the Escape does best - DIE!
This discussion is CR-V vs Escape... why isn't someone's (ANYONE's) perception of the vehicles' relative quality welcome?
-james
muckyduck's opinions have been made clear already. I asked him for the major advantages that the CR-V holds over the Escape quite some time ago because he keeps claiming that the CR-V "is the greatest". I just wanted to see how he came up with this claim.
Since he had to ask which Escape trim level best compares to the CR-V EX, I'm not expecting to be overwhelmed with information. As was proven in post 1188.
It's OK though. We Ford people are used to the bashers. They're just jealuous that's all.
Here's a new one (I think).
Honda's
Often
Never
Drive
Again
Now, back to moose and squirrel.
"Shucks, Foiled Again!!"
consumer reports
edmunds.com
popular mechanics
popular science
newsweek
business week
etc.
etc.
They say Honda is reliable and often state that the Fords have problems. I fail to see the conspiracy here! Consumer reports uses statistics in an appropiate manor; scientifically and ethically.
By the way muckyduck, Ford Trucks (F150, 250, etc.) are very reliable and hold their value as well as any Honda. Also, Honda's total vehicle production is about equal to how many F150's Ford sells. Every car company has it's good and bad. Take the Odyssey and the Passport for instance.
"A tautology is a thing which is tautological." - Dave Berry
"Arguing with a stubborn person is much like mud wrestling with a pig. Pretty soon you realize
the pig likes it." - Anonymous
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former." - Einstein
-- R. Wilensky
"If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?"
-- Steven Wright
and my last quote for the week
"Hey Bullwinkle, we're in real trouble now!"
"Oh good, Rocky! I hate that artificial kind!"
Muckyduck...calm down man!!! I also belive the Escape is not as reliable but I am not going to start insulting the entire company or any person over it. Baggs's examples of the Odyseey and Passport are sort of right......First of all the Odyseey did have some pretty major troubles BUT Honda did fix it very quickly and it is now one the most reliable vans on the market. As for the Passport, it is made entirely by Isuzu and that is why the Pilot has emerged. I think Honda fixes problems much faster than Ford because my example of engine stalling problems is still happening after 2 1/2 years of sales. The odyseey engine problems were solved in a recall and now that engine is used in the Pilot, MDX and of course Odyssey with an impeccable record.
The Tribute I had was noisy, rattled a lot and had major mechanical problems at 300km's! My 2001 CRV is quieter and smoother and it has only a small engine with absolutely NO rattles, shakes, stalling NOTHING after 35000Km's (I drive a lot). I have had 5 Hondas and previously before my CRV I had a Civic Si that I drove so hard that I was surprised it held out. I use sythetic oil and keep my cars in perfect showroom condition BUT I drive them hard......NEVER had any mechanical problems after all 5....This is the only make that has given me this reliability and I have owned all 3 domestics and even Hyundai which I must say was 95% reliable..MUCH more than the domestics I had!