same thing... Someone posted in another chat room the Escape/Tribute has moved up the chart as far as reliability goes. I knew this was going to happen it was only a matter of time. With all the Escape/Tribute owners I have spoke to over the months and none having any problems.. Finally! a new 4cyl for the Escape! I read about this when the Escape was first introduced. This 2.3 is now used in the Ranger. I had read they needed to be able to produce enough 4cyl engines because they felt demand would be strong. This 4cyl was supposed to have between 150-160HP and about the same for torque. The new engine was also supposed to give better MPG than the present 2.0 Zetec. Ford/Mazda needs to do this. This engine would round the Escape/Trib out very nicely and compete head to head with other 4cyl engines in this class.
Well scape, not to rain on your parade but there is also a strong rumour that the CRV is in for a more powerful engine as well because of the introduction of the Element. I will have to find that article where it said that it may be 180hp in 2004. I am not sure how true that is but it does make some sense because they (Honda) would not want 2 vehicles competeing in the same category.
It would not be hard to increase the power of this engine with some better breathing and adjustment to intake and vtec technology. We will find out soon enough I guess. Just look at the Pilot and MDX 240hp vs. 260hp.....same engine!
Baggs - The web article is dated October 2002. I don't think a printed version could be any more up to date than that, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
to understand. HP Vs Torque. The ability to pull/haul/tow loads and/or the vehicle confidently. You already have to rev the he.. out of the 2.4 in the CRv to achieve any sort of performance. (in the 5sp) And, you had better have it empty, not full of gear or people. Torque my friend is what the CRV needs. The 3.0 Duratec is capable of up to 260HP/235ft/lbs of torque by the way....The new 2.3 is what the Escape needs in order to compete in the 4cyl segement. I have to admit though. The Element is going to be in its own niche and I foresee it doing quiet well. Saw a news clip on it and all of its gadgets/abilities. Pricing however is going to be steep. over 18K for a 4wd version?? Competition from the Korean brands along with Suzuki is going to be fierce.
Scape for your info.....the Element is priced cheaper than the CRV at least here in Canada it is.
Please stop repeating yourself concerning towing and hauling....whatever. Sales don't seem to reflect your opinion. I could say that yours is still stalling and is still noisy but that is old news.......move on brother! I have one with 2 kids and have never had a problem going anywhere at high speeds.
What is this 260hp/235lb. feet thingy???????? That engine would blow up at those tolerences. It would have to have new internal parts and transmission to handle that power which would cost a fortune LOL! When I compared 180hp, that is by basically changing a few parts for better breathing and combustion. You do not get 60 extra horsepower form that with a Duratec!!!!!LOL!
With the recent discovery of this Edmunds site, and just waiting for our new crv to arrive, I must say this is all fantastic!! Have immensely enjoyed the interesting conversations that take place. The reason we chose a crv is that we were talking of going back to a car, but the wife likes to sit up higher than what a car does. After hours of shopping around and talking to a few people, we come to the conclusion that the crv is a glorified car in a way. What Iam saying that is in our neck of the woods, when we talk horsepower, torque, ft. lbs, then we pull out the big boys--- DURAMAX--CUMMINS-- etc. What Iam getting at, is know what you want. If its serious mud flinging,off roading or climbing, then I would suggest that neither the CRV or the Escape is the answer. If you want to get back to that more car like ride with that ease of mind of four wheel help, then I think these two are your answer. If you want fuel mileage totally, then look at the VW. Have owned two in the past. There great. Thanks guys I enjoy this greatly.
The same 3.0L Duratec is in the base Jaguar S-Type. It has been massaged to produce about 240 HP and 220 lb/ft of torque, although I think it was raised for this year with the addition of VVT. Edmunds' numbers seem a little off for 2003. Those output numbers are right on par with what Honda can do with their 3.0L from the new Accord, only the Ford version produces slightly more torque. The version in the Lincoln LS differs by only about 10 HP.
They can go quite far with the Duratec if need be. The Jaguar version is the first time they used VVT in it, so they're just starting to realize the benefits of that technology with this specific engine.
Most manufacturers aren't that far off from Honda's engine technology. They just don't put the smooth one's in their basic lines too. Those are usually reserved for the luxury brands unfortunately.
baggs I think you should stay clear that manufacturers are close to the Honda engine technology as it is more copying than breakthrough! VVT and i-vtec all come from the Japanese engineering as well as German manufacturers NOT American based companies. If you want to compare your V6 to anything, do it with the new one in the new Accord! Try it......I did and it is very sweet.
The engine in the Jaguar maybe more powerful BUT it is not the same as your Escape and if you believe that it is you would have paid 20000$ more for your vehicle. It is a derivative of it yes but you can bet the pistons, rings, crank etc...have more tolerences than your Escape! Also, new Jaguars do not have the same resale or reliability as BMW, Mercs or even Acura and Infinity but they are one sweet machine anyways.
hondaman, That engine in the SHO was designed (possibly built) by Yamaha not Ford. Most of Ford's V8's are very reliable and have to be because some variation of each can be had in the F Series lines.
You're right that most manufacturers copy Japanese engine technologies. I should have worded my statement a little better. Didn't GM invent the multi-valve engine back in the eighties though? Wasn't it the Quad4 that started it all?
The parts that make the Jaguar engine more powerful would not cost $20,000 over the Escape version. Try a few hundred dollars. Jaguars have a lot more going for them than their engines. In comparison, the MDX is not $15,000 more than the Pilot just because it produces 20 more HP from the same engine. Internal parts were certainly beefed up in order to squeeze that extra twenty out too.
BMW and Merc reliability is crashing to the ground according to the Honda Bibles (CR and J.D. Power). I think Merc was even rated the lowest of any premium brand the last time around. Jaguar has been on its way up if I'm not mistaken. Resale is a different story.
No thanks on the new Accord. My wife, a self-proclaimed Honda fan who really only seems to like the Civic, wants a Mazda 6 instead. According to MT this month, the Accord's V6 is pretty nice though. They just forgot to give it some handling to complement it.
...and "Honda Bibles", LOL. I wonder if hondaman02 ever visits the Honda Civic forums. It sounds like a coup is brewing among the '01 model owners. A bunch of them are having doubts and losing their faith. The end is near!!!
The Yamaha engine was a joint program with Ford and Yamaha at the same time as the Yamaha engine was being used in Formula 1......it was no good there either. Not everything Japanese is good.
The MDX only modified the exaust system and intake to get 20hp. The engine in the Jag is by NO means the same as your Escape because if it was, why would anyone buy them at that price? I have never heard of it before. I could be wrong however but I hope I am not!
You are right about the Accord's suspension......it is not sporty enough but I guess they (Honda) are just going to wait to see if it is a good idea to market a GT model. With double wishbones and all, this would not be an expensive modification.
You are also quite right about the Mazda 6.........seems like a half decent machine but a little under powered compared to the competition but some people don't care about that.
The Accords V6 is actually a gem........very fast and what a great sound. Can't wait to try the 6 speed coupe!
I previously owned a 2000 si Civic coupe (Sir American) and it was one of the best cars I ever had for the buck! I drove the crap out of it and it never even hiccupped once! Had it for 80000km's. I don't particularily like the newer models as I think Honda down graded too much but quality is not an issue and if we all take scapes advice......you should not always believe what those Forums say in the first place!
I will say this again.....I have owned 9 Honda's and rent many dozens each year with our company and they have always been 100% Can't say that with all the domestics we had before.............that was a nightmare. Only one has really impressed me..........Liberty!
The average mileage on my cars is about 70000km's per 2 years so I spend a lot of time behind the wheel and can tell you that it is not the same as most people spending an hour a day or whatever. You learn to become part of the vehicle and that's when you find faults in a car. Honda has always given me the least amount so what can I say?
Ohhhhhh! I think I made a boo boo! When I said quality was not an issue I meant that the Civics quality and reliability is not questioned. It is still way above average but not perfect... no car is! Look at the Focus first then compare.
is a very versatile engine. Hondaman, you are completly brainwashed. You honesly think HOnda has the small engine world cornered?? better yet, they are the only car company that can massage an engine?? The Duratec 3.0 can be massaged to 260HP and about 235ft/lbs of torque.. Even the Zetec Engine Found in the Focus SVT has been massaged to 170HP. This pedastel you place HOnda on makes me laugh. Element is supposed to be cheaper than the CRV.. Once again, the CRV is not an inexpensive vehicle. It has no price advantage over the Escape. Plastered all over the paper once again are CRV EX-L 4wd's for 23,999! Yeeouch.!
In this SUV class the Escape has more of the SUV feel and abilities than the CRV. As far as MPG goes.. you get 2 miles per gallon more than I do..(automatic transmission) I have loaded an 02 CRV with 4 adults and about 300-400lbs of gear. Taken it up into the Cascade mountains.. no-way can you tell me it does just as well as the Escape. These two vehicles have a 150lbs weight difference. The Escape give you 40 more HP and 40ft/lbs more to torque. The Escape will handle heavy loads, pull, haul, tow whatever much more confidently than a CRV..
I do not doubt your facts at all, we have drove both,but like I said before know what you want. The wife said no doubt that the CRV handled much more like a car than the Escape. For the flat highway driving we do we felt it was the best choice. I just feel that if towing,hauling, and pulling are going to be your main concerns then I know myself that I would be looking at neither. I think you better step up more horses yet. I also agree with hondaman02, any big mile travelers I talked to say hands down that your domestics will not compete for durability
Scape.....YOU make me laugh! If you think the SVT is the same engine as the Focus I have some swampland in the artic for you! LOL. It has been completely rebuilt for this purpose only to be a performance car. Even that was subject to recall before it even came out!
I am sure that I have racked up many more miles in a Ford than you have bud and I can tell you one thing.....they are not very solid! You drive one car for 5 years and that makes you an authority on reliability for that company. I drive about 30 different cars a year for the past 16 years and I am wrong??!!! I am by far, no expert but I (and others in our companies)have more experience in break downs than you do and Honda never gave me )or them)one of but Ford and GM certainly have! I have only been brainwashed by choice not made gullable(? spelling) by incentives!!!
"The wife said no doubt that the CRV handled much more like a car than the Escape."
Actually, the Escape puts out slightly better handling numbers than the CR-V on the test track.
The way it feels to you certainly has its own value, mostly because you are the one spending the money to buy it. My wife and I felt the same way about the engine in the Escape. It felt superior to the CR-V's. As it turns out, the test track numbers for both are pretty close again when it comes to engine performance. That doesn't include things like towing though.
hondaman, The Jaguar versions of the Duratec have a dual exhaust setup. There's 10-20 HP right there. The rest comes from some internal "massaging". The fact is, most of the Jaguar engine is exactly the same as the Ford versions. Jaguar's reliability has been upward bound over the past few years, so the engine can't be all that bad right?
The X-Type's version of the Duratec is probably a closer cousin, but we're talking about an entry level model in that case.
Yes baggs the engine is not a bad one and I don't want you to think that is what I am saying. I was aiming more at scapes comments but yes the Jag is a better vehicle today and I must say that they are quite nice. Hope it gets better in F1 for them soon though.
I would not attempt however to say the Duratec is superior than the CRV's engine because it is a 4cyl. Put the same size 6 from Honda into it and it will have 240hp and feel MUCH superior and refined.......so I say it is like comparing apples to oranges!
scape - "Hondaman, you are completly brainwashed. You honesly think HOnda has the small engine world cornered?? better yet, they are the only car company that can massage an engine?? The Duratec 3.0 can be massaged to 260HP and about 235ft/lbs of torque.. Even the Zetec Engine Found in the Focus SVT has been massaged to 170HP. This pedastel you place HOnda on makes me laugh."
Yes, and the 2.0L found in the RSX-S can produce 200hp. Type-R's in Japan produce 220hp. And the 3.0L found in the base NSX produces 252hp and 210 lb-ft of torque...and that was close to 10 years ago. If you can't admire that, especially since you're an engineer, I think you're being rather obstinate.
It has a very peaky torque curve. The numbers look good on paper, but not very usable. The low-end torque is quite pathetic for a six cylinder; it's a pity that Ford is producing those high rating / no-umph engines even as the old Mustang vs. GSR debate aplenty that for real life driving, it's the low-end usable torque that matters, not the torque number up in 4000+rpm. For a Honda four-cylinder, the 2.4 in CR-V is actually not that bad; it has so much low-end torque that the vehicle is showing torque steer!
"It has a very peaky torque curve. The numbers look good on paper, but not very usable."
That's why it is not used in their "real" trucks. For example, the Ranger. The Duratec would be quite nice in it, but not as useful. Instead they went with the 3.0L and 4.0L Vulcan pushrods.
"For a Honda four-cylinder, the 2.4 in CR-V is actually not that bad; it has so much low-end torque that the vehicle is showing torque steer!"
Any I4 of that size will make about the same amount of power. Even though it's probably not the best example, I'll use the Ranger again. It's base engine is a 2.3L I4 that produces 143 HP and 154 lb/ft. The only trick that it has is a DOHC design. Add VVT to it, and you have something very similar to the CR-V's 2.4L. So, the CR-V's engine is not all that special when it comes to ouput. If they squeeze more out of it, it is going to lose a lot of that low-end torque but gain horses at a high RPM like most other Honda engines.
Besides, torque steer is not a desired trait on any vehicle.
hondaman, I'm not saying that Honda's engines are less advanced either. It's just that their engines are not for everyone.
CR-V's engine is not tuned for horsepower, but for low-end torque. Honda's 2.0 in Civic Si and base RSX can deliver as much power as the CR-V's 2.4; the 2.0 in RSX-S can produce 40 more. How ironic that Ford is making a high-revving/weak-low-end-torque engine for its trucklet whereas Honda is putting in an engine with good low-end torque (as far as four cylinders are concerned). I know torque steer is not a desirable trait, but it's indicative of good engine performance off the line, sure beats the heck out of hesitation off the line. CR-V's torque steer is not severe at all.
Years back, I test drove a Taurus with the Vulcan and the Duratec back to back, the Vulcan actually felt more powerful off the line and even in the initial phases of passing despite the 50hp deficit on paper compared to the Duratec. The Duratec Taurus was positively lethargic in city traffic.
Brightness - I don't suppose you could direct us to a torque curve for the Escape. The peak is rather high on the band, but we've haven't been able to find a reliable curve to post as an image here. Thanks.
Baggs - Here's a few examples for you:
Highlander 2.4L 155 hp @ 5600 163 ft-lbs @ 4000
Forester 2.5L 165 hp @ 5600 166 fl-lbs @ 4000
Xterra 2.4L 143 hp @ 5200 154 ft-lbs @ 4000
Liberty 2.4L 150 hp @ 5200 165 ft-lbs @ 4000
The output for the CR-V's 2.4 is in line with most other engines of the same displacement. But there's more to an engine than just peak numbers. Note that the CR-V reaches peak torque sooner than any other block. I haven't compared torque curves with each of these (only the Soob and the Highlander), but it is unlikely than any other has a curve as flat as the CR-V. Take a look at emissions and you'll find that the CR-V ranks the best in the group. Fuel efficiency is tough to compare as they are all have different weights and tranny types, but the CR-V does very well in that regard. When comparing the finer things in life (NVH under the hood), the CR-V's block has been praised more than any other.
So, while the output is fairly modest, the total package is very impressive.
Owning both a CRV and a Liberty, I am interested in the torque curves over the usable rpm range for both. Do you have any torque info for the CRV at 1350 rpm, 2400 rpm, 3600 rpm and 4000 rpm?
From the info I found for the Liberty 2.4L ( as best as I can read the chart):
I would expect the 2.4L CRV engine to develop more torque than the 2.4L liberty engine due to the Variable Valve timing. My Liberty doesn't have the 2.4L, just interested in comparing both engines.
Here you go JohnDavid. One thing that is missing from your numbers is how fast the torque peak falls. The CR-V's engine actually loses torque slower than it builds it. Granted, people rarely use the rpm band higher than 4000.
Here we go again.. You made claim that Honda was the only car company that can "massage" its engines for more HP/Torque? correct? I showed you the Focus SVT uses the same 2.0 engine.. its been "massaged".. Ever heard of the Cosworth Focus? 220HP AWD 2.0.. And were at it again. Trying so hard to make the 2.4 every bit as powerful as the 3.0 found in the Escape. Numbers don't lie. The Escape has another 40ft/lbs of torque to give AFTER the Honda is all done, along with another 40 HP to boot! These vehicls differ by only 150lbs also. The fact is you have to rev the hell out of the 2.4, redline after redline in order to achieve any kind of power out of it. HOndaman.. Yes, I have owned Fords since I was 16. Never had any of these catastrophic problems you like to speak so highly of. I presently own a 98 Ranger with over 80,000 miles.. Never a problem. Mother and father in law own a 95 Taurus that has been through the lower 48 states, 110,000 trouble free miles, Mother owns a 93 Escort with over 100,000 miles, I can go on and on here with people I know that own Ford products and are satisfied.
Other's have tried to claim that the 2.4L CRV has a broader torque curve than the 3.0L in the Escape. It turns out they are both about the same in terms of 'broadness'.
there is a formula by which we can determe Torque, if we know HP and RPM..
Torque=(HP*5252)/RPM
According to that post, the above formula
"is not a debatable item. It's the way it's done. Period"
So using this, here's the torque curve for the Escape vs CRV.
At around 1700 RPM the Escape/CRV HP numbers are the same, so the torque would be the same as well.
Around 135 ft/lbs
1700 rpms: Escape:135 ft/lbs CRV:135 ft/lbs
2500 rpms: Escape:178 ft/lbs CRV:143 ft/lbs
3000 rpms: Escape:192 ft/lbs, CRV:157 ft/lbs
3500 rpms: Escape:195 ft/lbs CRV:165? ft/lbs
4000 rpms: Escape:196 ft/lbs CRV:168? ft/lbs
4500 rpms: Escape:198 ft/lbs CRV:163 ft/lbs
5000 rpms: Escape:194 ft/lbs CRV:157 ft/lbs
5500 rpms: Escape:181 ft/lbs CRV:148 ft/lbs
6000 rpms: Escape:173 ft/lbs CRV:140 ft/lbs
? According to the 'forumla' the CRV should be producing more torque than Honda says it is. This occurs if I use your chart or the other one. Only the 3500 and 4000 rpm numbers see 'off a bit" Maybe Honda is being conservative to avoid law suits etc like some manufacturers did.
90% of 200 = 180
So, the Escape is producing 90% of its torque between 2700 rpms and 5500 rpms
90% of 160 = 144
So the CRV is producing 90% of its torque from around 2600 rpms to 5700 rpms. (looks more broad than the Escape I admit, but not by much. Also from 1700 rpms on the Escape is much higher.
note: if you calculate 90% of 168 = 151 which then 90% would be between 2800 rpms and 5300 rpms, (less broad than the Escape, but again, not by much).
I'm also not seeing the huge drop in torque that you mention has to exist, and also the Escape ramps up to 90% of its torque in pretty short order. Also note the torque value at any point from 2400 rpm on through 6000 rpm in the Escape is higher than the peak torque of the CRV.
"So, while the output is fairly modest, the total package is very impressive."
I agree varmint, but with all it's advanced features and the way some people around here praise it, you would think it is more powerful.
You mention the CR-V's superior emissions rating again. What percentage of American car buyers really care about emissions anyway? For example, J.D. Power says that almost half of them care about long term reliability when shopping around. Has anyone ever tried to figure out how many care about what they are leaving behind while driving?
I can't imagine that it is a high percentage at all, and if it isn't, why do the Japanese manufacturers (and apparently their product owners) wear the ULEV/SULEV ratings like a badge? (Please note that I'm not trying to insult all the tree huggers out there, and I apologize in advance if I have.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see many other manufacturers jumping on the Honda/Toyota SULEV bandwagon. Yet. They're probably waiting for the government to make them. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The thing is baggs, in Japan they have NO choice but to take careful consideration of low emission vehicles. There is nothing wrong with that because we will leave a cleaner planet for our children.
Eventually the Governments will crack down on this because of pressures from radical groups and the domestics may be caught with their pants down if they don't take this seriously. To develop an engine that is clean and efficient at the same time without sacrificing power and reliability is no easy feat! Ford has had recent problems with this and has had to abandon certain programs because they could not deliver what they promised.
I guess you could kind of compare this to cigarette companies and their ignorance of the health problems they have caused.
Eventually the Governments will crack down on this because of pressures from radical groups...
Governments don't take action until it is politically safe to do so - which means that an issue has to attract the interest of more than just radicals.
"Governments don't take action until it is politically safe to do so"
...and the "Big Three" support that same government with a lot of rectangular pieces of green paper.
hondaman, I see your point about lowering the emissions in Japan, but what do the domestic manufacturers do about that? I'm not 100% sure that they all sell over there, but if they do, are they all SULEV too?
Don't get me wrong, low emissions is a great feature on an engine. But take it away from an engine like the CR-V's and it's really not all that special any more as shown in the numbers that varmint posted a few messages above. The ULEV and SULEV badges seem to be nothing more than sales pitches over here (I'm sure they did spend a fair amount of money to develop them though).
Actually, Honda and Toyota make a better 4 than just about ANYONE in the world. Believe what you wish but, while the big 3 were out finding ways to ruin the enviornment, (i.e. Excursion, Escalade, Hummer, Durango...etc.) Honda and Toyota were making BETTER CARS BETTER for the ENVIRONMENT.
Better mileage & better emissions.
The following was taken from a NY Times article-
"Ford Motor Co's Focus model might be most error-prone car in industry; low-cost car, which was introduced in 1999, has had total of 11 safety recalls and is subject of five defect investigations by federal regulators; two new recalls this week, including wiring problem that could in worst-case situations, cause engine fires, raise even more questions; five pending investigations into Focus account for at least 7 percent of entire defect investigation caseload of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..."
Scape2 - Sure, any car company can massage an engine for greater hp. But Honda is the best at using that technology in mass-production cars. Pretty much every Honda has it. They get performance without sacrificing emissions and fuel economy. The only Fords I'm aware of are the specialty cars tuned by outside partners.
Bess - Better check you links. Though, the puppy was very cute.
The only thing we've seen posted for the V6 Escape is an HP curve. That curve is incomplete and unverified. Not the sort of data I like to use. We don't have a torque curve for the Escape.
Anyway, your torque figures are based on that curve and use the math I provided in the Vettenet thread, which I've explained is not always accurate. I recall similar results when applying that formula to the 99-01 Ody and a few other engines. Your own use of it shows the CR-V generating more power than the engine is rated for at 3500, 4000, and 4500. There are also discrepancies at 2,500 and 6,000 rpms.
One other correction: the CR-V is making about 90% of peak torque at around 2200 rpms, not 2600. Relax that measure to 85%, and the CR-V's curve stretches from 1750 to over 6500, or pretty much the entire engine range.
As Baggs noted after your original post, the CR-V actually makes more torque (using your numbers) than the Escape does at the very lowest rpms 1000-1700. These would be the typical launch point for ordinary city driving.
Baggs - You're on track (with me anyway). For Honda, the use of the technology is not purely a matter of power. In fact, it was Alfa that first used it in a mass-production car. The idea was to boost fuel economy. Honda uses it for both fuel economy and emissions. The unspoken goal is "without sacrificing power", but the result is the same; a well-balanced engine that fails at nothing.
The lack of badges is not an issue. Honda doesn't print fuel economy under the name plate and they don't list reliability data on the grill, either. Yet, these are things that Hondas are still known for. Honda also leaves displacement numbers off all cars. You don't see any "five point O's" adorning Honda fenders because they don't advertise that way. Honda simply uses other means of getting the word out. Take the Insight and Hybrid Civic as examples. That's walking the walk, not badges or decals.
True the USA at large doesn't seem to be as interested in emissions as other nations. However, California has taken the lead and several other states have followed. If California continues to pass stringent regulations (like that Carbon Dioxide tom-foolery), big cars and SUVs without progressive emissions technology will become relics. Worse yet, makers won't have anything they can legally sell.
When emissions DOES hit the general public, Honda (and others) will be there with an established reputation. Other makers will be "also-rans". Take a look at how long Honda's rep for reliability has lasted despite the fact that Toyota, Subaru, and others make equally solid cars. Being first counts in a big way.
Ford, on the other hand, recently admitted that they will no longer pursue new programs aimed at reducing emissions or raising fuel economy. They will finish what they have started, but no new goals are to be set. Instead, they will continue to focus on the gas-guzzlers that are making money today.
That brings us to fuel economy, which may become an even larger issue than emissions. Honda is already making waves in that regard. When congress asked car makers to speak on the issue of increasing CAFE levels, Honda was the only manufacturer who said that the proposed goals were realistic. Honda also has two of the three Hybrids on US roads today and plans for several more.
The short of it is this... Honda is poised for future goals in emissions and fuel economy. Ford is not. Engines with the VTEC, i-VTEC, and Hybrid systems are here and now for Honda. The 2.4L engine we are discussing is not a marvel of technology. It may seem high-tech to some, but it's bread and butter for Honda.
varmint, I wasn't really referring to the physical badges that get plastered on some vehicles today, but I get what you're saying. GM is famous for all the crap that they slap on their vehicles. One of my favorites was the ABS and/or disc brake information they used to print on their wheels and hub caps. Now that I think about it though, Acura's do have quite a bit of unnecessary badging.
I'd also like to add that it would be pointless for Honda to place badges like engine displacement on their vehicles anyway. Most people would just laugh at the size (Does it really matter though?).
"Ford, on the other hand, recently admitted that they will no longer pursue new programs aimed at reducing emissions or raising fuel economy."
True, but at least they tried. The other two didn't make such a large effort if they made any at all. Also, if I recall correctly, I believe the rest of the article tells us that they are only giving up until they are back on track financially. I never really thought that their fuel mileage numbers were that bad when compared to other makes. Sure the big SUV's are bad, but show me one that isn't (a real one, not a reskinned mini-van or car like the Pilot and Highlander). Besides, it's not like the Accord and Civic are blowing the Taurus and Focus away in that category.
However, if you look at the brand average Honda looks much better. Averages are what the government likes to regulate these days which is stupid if you ask me. Ford can just add a hybrid or a diesel to its line in order to improve an average, while still selling Excursions (for the next year anyway) and Expeditions. These people who are going after Ford and its big SUV's need to look at their real problem. Those big SUV's don't really need those big engines to get around. Does anyone really believe that a Cadillac Escalade driver should have 300+ HP at his/her command? Those engines can be made smaller and thus more efficient, but that's not what the government is asking them to do.
Asking them to lower the average does not mean the manufacturers will make their least efficient models more efficient.
Regarding the Focus. Only the models built in the late '99 and early '00 in America were affected by all 11 recalls. The '02 models weren't. FoMoCo's made a huge mistake in N.A. during the launching process. The N.A. Focus quality is an ANOMALY, not a Norm. The Ford Focus is a bestseller car all over the world and still be considered a handling benchmark in the class 5 years after its introduction. The Euro-built Focus this year got the HIGHEST quality ratings in the class, beating the JAPANESE. It's never happened before. If the Focus design is so flawed (it's an exellent design) then how come the Euro Focus was able to beat everything in the class - in ride, handling AND quality? There are reasons why the NA-built Focus have had so many problems. And Ford will never repeat them again if they want to stay in business. The Focus as a design IS a sure winner. It's the N.A. management team who screw the N.A. launch. Bye bye Jack Nasser.
BTW, have you heard about problems and recalls (whoops) spoiling the '01 Civic reputation, or even more problems with Swindon-built Civic Si and Type-R hatchbacks????? Plus the Acura RSX-S(a hint: something to do with engines and trannys).
An anomaly? 2 years of ineptitude doesn't fit the definition of anomaly.
While I'm happy Ford is doing so well in Europe, America is where most in this discussion have to purchase our vehicles.
BTW the SVT Focus is currently under recall for it's throttle.
Honda has a recall on 2001 models and it's big news, what does that tell you? Spoiling the reputation? When? Amongst whom? 2003 arrives in 29 days and the last time I checked the Accord was named best selling family sedan, the Civic is selling like hotcakes, and I can't get my CR-V for 3 weeks. Sounds like everything's running smoothly here.
Three cheers for Ford, they FINALLY built a car that bested the Japanese...funny how you're the one pointing that out.
Comments
They might be. They don't seem to have a good study outline on their web site, so it's hard to tell where their ratings really come from.
Finally! a new 4cyl for the Escape! I read about this when the Escape was first introduced. This 2.3 is now used in the Ranger. I had read they needed to be able to produce enough 4cyl engines because they felt demand would be strong. This 4cyl was supposed to have between 150-160HP and about the same for torque. The new engine was also supposed to give better MPG than the present 2.0 Zetec. Ford/Mazda needs to do this. This engine would round the Escape/Trib out very nicely and compete head to head with other 4cyl engines in this class.
It would not be hard to increase the power of this engine with some better breathing and adjustment to intake and vtec technology. We will find out soon enough I guess. Just look at the Pilot and MDX 240hp vs. 260hp.....same engine!
I have to admit though. The Element is going to be in its own niche and I foresee it doing quiet well. Saw a news clip on it and all of its gadgets/abilities. Pricing however is going to be steep. over 18K for a 4wd version?? Competition from the Korean brands along with Suzuki is going to be fierce.
Please stop repeating yourself concerning towing and hauling....whatever. Sales don't seem to reflect your opinion. I could say that yours is still stalling and is still noisy but that is old news.......move on brother! I have one with 2 kids and have never had a problem going anywhere at high speeds.
What is this 260hp/235lb. feet thingy???????? That engine would blow up at those tolerences. It would have to have new internal parts and transmission to handle that power which would cost a fortune LOL! When I compared 180hp, that is by basically changing a few parts for better breathing and combustion. You do not get 60 extra horsepower form that with a Duratec!!!!!LOL!
The same 3.0L Duratec is in the base Jaguar S-Type. It has been massaged to produce about 240 HP and 220 lb/ft of torque, although I think it was raised for this year with the addition of VVT. Edmunds' numbers seem a little off for 2003. Those output numbers are right on par with what Honda can do with their 3.0L from the new Accord, only the Ford version produces slightly more torque. The version in the Lincoln LS differs by only about 10 HP.
They can go quite far with the Duratec if need be. The Jaguar version is the first time they used VVT in it, so they're just starting to realize the benefits of that technology with this specific engine.
Most manufacturers aren't that far off from Honda's engine technology. They just don't put the smooth one's in their basic lines too. Those are usually reserved for the luxury brands unfortunately.
The engine in the Jaguar maybe more powerful BUT it is not the same as your Escape and if you believe that it is you would have paid 20000$ more for your vehicle. It is a derivative of it yes but you can bet the pistons, rings, crank etc...have more tolerences than your Escape! Also, new Jaguars do not have the same resale or reliability as BMW, Mercs or even Acura and Infinity but they are one sweet machine anyways.
More good news!!!!!
That engine in the SHO was designed (possibly built) by Yamaha not Ford. Most of Ford's V8's are very reliable and have to be because some variation of each can be had in the F Series lines.
You're right that most manufacturers copy Japanese engine technologies. I should have worded my statement a little better. Didn't GM invent the multi-valve engine back in the eighties though? Wasn't it the Quad4 that started it all?
The parts that make the Jaguar engine more powerful would not cost $20,000 over the Escape version. Try a few hundred dollars. Jaguars have a lot more going for them than their engines. In comparison, the MDX is not $15,000 more than the Pilot just because it produces 20 more HP from the same engine. Internal parts were certainly beefed up in order to squeeze that extra twenty out too.
BMW and Merc reliability is crashing to the ground according to the Honda Bibles (CR and J.D. Power). I think Merc was even rated the lowest of any premium brand the last time around. Jaguar has been on its way up if I'm not mistaken. Resale is a different story.
No thanks on the new Accord. My wife, a self-proclaimed Honda fan who really only seems to like the Civic, wants a Mazda 6 instead. According to MT this month, the Accord's V6 is pretty nice though. They just forgot to give it some handling to complement it.
I wonder if hondaman02 ever visits the Honda Civic forums.
It sounds like a coup is brewing among the '01 model owners. A bunch of them are having doubts and losing their faith.
The end is near!!!
The MDX only modified the exaust system and intake to get 20hp. The engine in the Jag is by NO means the same as your Escape because if it was, why would anyone buy them at that price? I have never heard of it before. I could be wrong however but I hope I am not!
You are right about the Accord's suspension......it is not sporty enough but I guess they (Honda) are just going to wait to see if it is a good idea to market a GT model. With double wishbones and all, this would not be an expensive modification.
You are also quite right about the Mazda 6.........seems like a half decent machine but a little under powered compared to the competition but some people don't care about that.
The Accords V6 is actually a gem........very fast and what a great sound. Can't wait to try the 6 speed coupe!
VADP........No comment worth writing!!!!!
I previously owned a 2000 si Civic coupe (Sir American) and it was one of the best cars I ever had for the buck! I drove the crap out of it and it never even hiccupped once! Had it for 80000km's. I don't particularily like the newer models as I think Honda down graded too much but quality is not an issue and if we all take scapes advice......you should not always believe what those Forums say in the first place!
I will say this again.....I have owned 9 Honda's and rent many dozens each year with our company and they have always been 100% Can't say that with all the domestics we had before.............that was a nightmare. Only one has really impressed me..........Liberty!
The average mileage on my cars is about 70000km's per 2 years so I spend a lot of time behind the wheel and can tell you that it is not the same as most people spending an hour a day or whatever. You learn to become part of the vehicle and that's when you find faults in a car. Honda has always given me the least amount so what can I say?
"...but quality is not an issue..."
I respect your opinion.
Element is supposed to be cheaper than the CRV..
Once again, the CRV is not an inexpensive vehicle. It has no price advantage over the Escape. Plastered all over the paper once again are CRV EX-L 4wd's for 23,999! Yeeouch.!
As far as MPG goes.. you get 2 miles per gallon more than I do..(automatic transmission)
I have loaded an 02 CRV with 4 adults and about 300-400lbs of gear. Taken it up into the Cascade mountains.. no-way can you tell me it does just as well as the Escape. These two vehicles have a 150lbs weight difference. The Escape give you 40 more HP and 40ft/lbs more to torque. The Escape will handle heavy loads, pull, haul, tow whatever much more confidently than a CRV..
I am sure that I have racked up many more miles in a Ford than you have bud and I can tell you one thing.....they are not very solid! You drive one car for 5 years and that makes you an authority on reliability for that company. I drive about 30 different cars a year for the past 16 years and I am wrong??!!! I am by far, no expert but I (and others in our companies)have more experience in break downs than you do and Honda never gave me )or them)one of but Ford and GM certainly have! I have only been brainwashed by choice not made gullable(? spelling) by incentives!!!
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk2/02focus_svt.htm
Actually, the Escape puts out slightly better handling numbers than the CR-V on the test track.
The way it feels to you certainly has its own value, mostly because you are the one spending the money to buy it. My wife and I felt the same way about the engine in the Escape. It felt superior to the CR-V's. As it turns out, the test track numbers for both are pretty close again when it comes to engine performance. That doesn't include things like towing though.
The Jaguar versions of the Duratec have a dual exhaust setup. There's 10-20 HP right there. The rest comes from some internal "massaging". The fact is, most of the Jaguar engine is exactly the same as the Ford versions. Jaguar's reliability has been upward bound over the past few years, so the engine can't be all that bad right?
The X-Type's version of the Duratec is probably a closer cousin, but we're talking about an entry level model in that case.
I would not attempt however to say the Duratec is superior than the CRV's engine because it is a 4cyl. Put the same size 6 from Honda into it and it will have 240hp and feel MUCH superior and refined.......so I say it is like comparing apples to oranges!
Yes, and the 2.0L found in the RSX-S can produce 200hp. Type-R's in Japan produce 220hp. And the 3.0L found in the base NSX produces 252hp and 210 lb-ft of torque...and that was close to 10 years ago. If you can't admire that, especially since you're an engineer, I think you're being rather obstinate.
That's why it is not used in their "real" trucks. For example, the Ranger. The Duratec would be quite nice in it, but not as useful. Instead they went with the 3.0L and 4.0L Vulcan pushrods.
"For a Honda four-cylinder, the 2.4 in CR-V is actually not that bad; it has so much low-end torque that the vehicle is showing torque steer!"
Any I4 of that size will make about the same amount of power. Even though it's probably not the best example, I'll use the Ranger again. It's base engine is a 2.3L I4 that produces 143 HP and 154 lb/ft. The only trick that it has is a DOHC design. Add VVT to it, and you have something very similar to the CR-V's 2.4L. So, the CR-V's engine is not all that special when it comes to ouput. If they squeeze more out of it, it is going to lose a lot of that low-end torque but gain horses at a high RPM like most other Honda engines.
Besides, torque steer is not a desired trait on any vehicle.
hondaman,
I'm not saying that Honda's engines are less advanced either. It's just that their engines are not for everyone.
Would you mind sharing that with the engineer so he can stop bragging about it then?
Years back, I test drove a Taurus with the Vulcan and the Duratec back to back, the Vulcan actually felt more powerful off the line and even in the initial phases of passing despite the 50hp deficit on paper compared to the Duratec. The Duratec Taurus was positively lethargic in city traffic.
Baggs - Here's a few examples for you:
Highlander 2.4L
155 hp @ 5600
163 ft-lbs @ 4000
Forester 2.5L
165 hp @ 5600
166 fl-lbs @ 4000
Xterra 2.4L
143 hp @ 5200
154 ft-lbs @ 4000
Liberty 2.4L
150 hp @ 5200
165 ft-lbs @ 4000
The output for the CR-V's 2.4 is in line with most other engines of the same displacement. But there's more to an engine than just peak numbers. Note that the CR-V reaches peak torque sooner than any other block. I haven't compared torque curves with each of these (only the Soob and the Highlander), but it is unlikely than any other has a curve as flat as the CR-V. Take a look at emissions and you'll find that the CR-V ranks the best in the group. Fuel efficiency is tough to compare as they are all have different weights and tranny types, but the CR-V does very well in that regard. When comparing the finer things in life (NVH under the hood), the CR-V's block has been praised more than any other.
So, while the output is fairly modest, the total package is very impressive.
From the info I found for the Liberty 2.4L ( as best as I can read the chart):
1350 rpm 142 lb-ft
2400 rpm 150 lb-ft
3000 rpm 154 lb-ft
3600 rpm 156 lb-ft
4000 rpm 165 lb-ft
I would expect the 2.4L CRV engine to develop more torque than the 2.4L liberty engine due to the Variable Valve timing. My Liberty doesn't have the 2.4L, just interested in comparing both engines.
Thanks
5900 rpm 201 hp
4700 rpm 196 ft-lbs
No torque curves shown for lower rpm. Would be nice to see what it had at 1350, 2400, 3000, 3600 and 4000 rpm if anyone has that info.
Liberty 2.4L missing numbers
4800 158 ft-lbs
5400 138 ft-lbs
And were at it again. Trying so hard to make the 2.4 every bit as powerful as the 3.0 found in the Escape. Numbers don't lie. The Escape has another 40ft/lbs of torque to give AFTER the Honda is all done, along with another 40 HP to boot! These vehicls differ by only 150lbs also.
The fact is you have to rev the hell out of the 2.4, redline after redline in order to achieve any kind of power out of it.
HOndaman.. Yes, I have owned Fords since I was 16. Never had any of these catastrophic problems you like to speak so highly of. I presently own a 98 Ranger with over 80,000 miles.. Never a problem. Mother and father in law own a 95 Taurus that has been through the lower 48 states, 110,000 trouble free miles, Mother owns a 93 Escort with over 100,000 miles, I can go on and on here with people I know that own Ford products and are satisfied.
Also note the last sentence.
Post 2196:
============
Ok, According to daveghh's HP curves that he posted for the CRV/Escape http://www.geocities.com/davekuhn77/CRV.html
And your very informative post, http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
there is a formula by which we can determe Torque, if we know HP and RPM..
Torque=(HP*5252)/RPM
According to that post, the above formula
"is not a debatable item. It's the way it's done. Period"
So using this, here's the torque curve for the Escape vs CRV.
At around 1700 RPM the Escape/CRV HP numbers are the same, so the torque would be the same as well.
Around 135 ft/lbs
1700 rpms: Escape:135 ft/lbs CRV:135 ft/lbs
2500 rpms: Escape:178 ft/lbs CRV:143 ft/lbs
3000 rpms: Escape:192 ft/lbs, CRV:157 ft/lbs
3500 rpms: Escape:195 ft/lbs CRV:165? ft/lbs
4000 rpms: Escape:196 ft/lbs CRV:168? ft/lbs
4500 rpms: Escape:198 ft/lbs CRV:163 ft/lbs
5000 rpms: Escape:194 ft/lbs CRV:157 ft/lbs
5500 rpms: Escape:181 ft/lbs CRV:148 ft/lbs
6000 rpms: Escape:173 ft/lbs CRV:140 ft/lbs
? According to the 'forumla' the CRV should be producing more torque than Honda says it is. This occurs if I use your chart or the other one. Only the 3500 and 4000 rpm numbers see 'off a bit" Maybe Honda is being conservative to avoid law suits etc like some manufacturers did.
90% of 200 = 180
So, the Escape is producing 90% of its torque between 2700 rpms and 5500 rpms
90% of 160 = 144
So the CRV is producing 90% of its torque from around 2600 rpms to 5700 rpms. (looks more broad than the Escape I admit, but not by much. Also from 1700 rpms on the Escape is much higher.
note: if you calculate 90% of 168 = 151 which then 90% would be between 2800 rpms and 5300 rpms, (less broad than the Escape, but again, not by much).
I'm also not seeing the huge drop in torque that you mention has to exist, and also the Escape ramps up to 90% of its torque in pretty short order. Also note the torque value at any point from 2400 rpm on through 6000 rpm in the Escape is higher than the peak torque of the CRV.
I agree varmint, but with all it's advanced features and the way some people around here praise it, you would think it is more powerful.
You mention the CR-V's superior emissions rating again. What percentage of American car buyers really care about emissions anyway? For example, J.D. Power says that almost half of them care about long term reliability when shopping around. Has anyone ever tried to figure out how many care about what they are leaving behind while driving?
I can't imagine that it is a high percentage at all, and if it isn't, why do the Japanese manufacturers (and apparently their product owners) wear the ULEV/SULEV ratings like a badge? (Please note that I'm not trying to insult all the tree huggers out there, and I apologize in advance if I have.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see many other manufacturers jumping on the Honda/Toyota SULEV bandwagon. Yet. They're probably waiting for the government to make them. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Eventually the Governments will crack down on this because of pressures from radical groups and the domestics may be caught with their pants down if they don't take this seriously. To develop an engine that is clean and efficient at the same time without sacrificing power and reliability is no easy feat! Ford has had recent problems with this and has had to abandon certain programs because they could not deliver what they promised.
I guess you could kind of compare this to cigarette companies and their ignorance of the health problems they have caused.
Governments don't take action until it is politically safe to do so - which means that an issue has to attract the interest of more than just radicals.
tidester, host
...and the "Big Three" support that same government with a lot of rectangular pieces of green paper.
hondaman,
I see your point about lowering the emissions in Japan, but what do the domestic manufacturers do about that? I'm not 100% sure that they all sell over there, but if they do, are they all SULEV too?
Don't get me wrong, low emissions is a great feature on an engine. But take it away from an engine like the CR-V's and it's really not all that special any more as shown in the numbers that varmint posted a few messages above. The ULEV and SULEV badges seem to be nothing more than sales pitches over here (I'm sure they did spend a fair amount of money to develop them though).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,850321,00.html
Better mileage & better emissions.
The following was taken from a NY Times article-
"Ford Motor Co's Focus model might be most error-prone car in industry; low-cost car, which was introduced in 1999, has had total of 11 safety recalls and is subject of five defect investigations by federal regulators; two new recalls this week, including wiring problem that could in worst-case situations, cause engine fires, raise even more questions; five pending investigations into Focus account for at least 7 percent of entire defect investigation caseload of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..."
7%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You keep talking quality, we'll keep driving it.
Bess - Better check you links. Though, the puppy was very cute.
The only thing we've seen posted for the V6 Escape is an HP curve. That curve is incomplete and unverified. Not the sort of data I like to use. We don't have a torque curve for the Escape.
Anyway, your torque figures are based on that curve and use the math I provided in the Vettenet thread, which I've explained is not always accurate. I recall similar results when applying that formula to the 99-01 Ody and a few other engines. Your own use of it shows the CR-V generating more power than the engine is rated for at 3500, 4000, and 4500. There are also discrepancies at 2,500 and 6,000 rpms.
One other correction: the CR-V is making about 90% of peak torque at around 2200 rpms, not 2600. Relax that measure to 85%, and the CR-V's curve stretches from 1750 to over 6500, or pretty much the entire engine range.
As Baggs noted after your original post, the CR-V actually makes more torque (using your numbers) than the Escape does at the very lowest rpms 1000-1700. These would be the typical launch point for ordinary city driving.
The lack of badges is not an issue. Honda doesn't print fuel economy under the name plate and they don't list reliability data on the grill, either. Yet, these are things that Hondas are still known for. Honda also leaves displacement numbers off all cars. You don't see any "five point O's" adorning Honda fenders because they don't advertise that way. Honda simply uses other means of getting the word out. Take the Insight and Hybrid Civic as examples. That's walking the walk, not badges or decals.
True the USA at large doesn't seem to be as interested in emissions as other nations. However, California has taken the lead and several other states have followed. If California continues to pass stringent regulations (like that Carbon Dioxide tom-foolery), big cars and SUVs without progressive emissions technology will become relics. Worse yet, makers won't have anything they can legally sell.
When emissions DOES hit the general public, Honda (and others) will be there with an established reputation. Other makers will be "also-rans". Take a look at how long Honda's rep for reliability has lasted despite the fact that Toyota, Subaru, and others make equally solid cars. Being first counts in a big way.
Ford, on the other hand, recently admitted that they will no longer pursue new programs aimed at reducing emissions or raising fuel economy. They will finish what they have started, but no new goals are to be set. Instead, they will continue to focus on the gas-guzzlers that are making money today.
That brings us to fuel economy, which may become an even larger issue than emissions. Honda is already making waves in that regard. When congress asked car makers to speak on the issue of increasing CAFE levels, Honda was the only manufacturer who said that the proposed goals were realistic. Honda also has two of the three Hybrids on US roads today and plans for several more.
The short of it is this... Honda is poised for future goals in emissions and fuel economy. Ford is not. Engines with the VTEC, i-VTEC, and Hybrid systems are here and now for Honda. The 2.4L engine we are discussing is not a marvel of technology. It may seem high-tech to some, but it's bread and butter for Honda.
I wasn't really referring to the physical badges that get plastered on some vehicles today, but I get what you're saying. GM is famous for all the crap that they slap on their vehicles. One of my favorites was the ABS and/or disc brake information they used to print on their wheels and hub caps. Now that I think about it though, Acura's do have quite a bit of unnecessary badging.
I'd also like to add that it would be pointless for Honda to place badges like engine displacement on their vehicles anyway. Most people would just laugh at the size (Does it really matter though?).
"Ford, on the other hand, recently admitted that they will no longer pursue new programs aimed at reducing emissions or raising fuel economy."
True, but at least they tried. The other two didn't make such a large effort if they made any at all. Also, if I recall correctly, I believe the rest of the article tells us that they are only giving up until they are back on track financially. I never really thought that their fuel mileage numbers were that bad when compared to other makes. Sure the big SUV's are bad, but show me one that isn't (a real one, not a reskinned mini-van or car like the Pilot and Highlander). Besides, it's not like the Accord and Civic are blowing the Taurus and Focus away in that category.
However, if you look at the brand average Honda looks much better. Averages are what the government likes to regulate these days which is stupid if you ask me. Ford can just add a hybrid or a diesel to its line in order to improve an average, while still selling Excursions (for the next year anyway) and Expeditions. These people who are going after Ford and its big SUV's need to look at their real problem. Those big SUV's don't really need those big engines to get around. Does anyone really believe that a Cadillac Escalade driver should have 300+ HP at his/her command? Those engines can be made smaller and thus more efficient, but that's not what the government is asking them to do.
Asking them to lower the average does not mean the manufacturers will make their least efficient models more efficient.
Only the models built in the late '99 and early '00 in America were affected by all 11 recalls.
The '02 models weren't.
FoMoCo's made a huge mistake in N.A. during the launching process. The N.A. Focus quality is an ANOMALY, not a Norm.
The Ford Focus is a bestseller car all over the world and still be considered a handling benchmark in the class 5 years after its introduction.
The Euro-built Focus this year got the HIGHEST quality ratings in the class, beating the JAPANESE.
It's never happened before.
If the Focus design is so flawed (it's an exellent design) then how come the Euro Focus was able to beat everything in the class - in ride, handling AND quality?
There are reasons why the NA-built Focus have had so many problems. And Ford will never repeat them again if they want to stay in business.
The Focus as a design IS a sure winner.
It's the N.A. management team who screw the N.A. launch. Bye bye Jack Nasser.
BTW, have you heard about problems and recalls (whoops) spoiling the '01 Civic reputation,
or even more problems with Swindon-built Civic Si and Type-R hatchbacks?????
Plus the Acura RSX-S(a hint: something to do with engines and trannys).
While I'm happy Ford is doing so well in Europe, America is where most in this discussion have to purchase our vehicles.
BTW the SVT Focus is currently under recall for it's throttle.
Honda has a recall on 2001 models and it's big news, what does that tell you? Spoiling the reputation? When? Amongst whom? 2003 arrives in 29 days and the last time I checked the Accord was named best selling family sedan, the Civic is selling like hotcakes, and I can't get my CR-V for 3 weeks. Sounds like everything's running smoothly here.
Three cheers for Ford, they FINALLY built a car that bested the Japanese...funny how you're the one pointing that out.