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
With a manual transmission, yes. Because those 40 horses don't arrive until later. I don't think the difference will be as noticeable with an auto tranny.
As far as load capacity of the Escape vs CRV and the ability to haul it. Once again you are twisting numbers. Ever heard of torque? You honda folks like to dwell so heavily on HP, torque is the key here. I have already done this test over the Cascade range here in Oregon. Find a mountain range, load up your CRV and try it yourself! As far as 0-60 numbers its all who you want to believe CR rates the Escape under 9.0 seconds as well as other reviews. Of course being Honda fans your going to believe the worst for the Escape. It just makes me laugh how you dismiss the 40HP and 40ft/lbs of torque advantage the Escape holds and view it as being of no advantage.
Been there, done that.
Three teens, my wife, camping gear for three days and two mt ranges in New England. I averaged 26 mpg with the A/C on.
And I have the old 2.0 engine.
That's funny, I averaged just under 26 mpg last summer on a trip to the OB of NC with somewhat less weight (only two people, but a lot of beach and golf gear, a week's worth of food, drink, and clothing, etc.). The A/C and CC were on almost the whole way and we didn't hit a flat piece of highway until somewhere around Richmond Virginia which is a little over half way there.
And that's with a bigger engine which didn't have to struggle like your 2.0 apparently did. Isn't your normal highway mpg about 30 or so if I recall correctly?
If you had read the entire post, maybe you'd have replied within the intended context.
I'm glad your Escape is running so well. My CR-V is running well too. It'll be news when it doesn't run, not when it does.
I wonder what kind of magic dust Escape owners use to achieve this kind of fuel economy. Maybe they should give some to corporate so they can raise their cafe numbers? Seriously, how do you guys get such nice MPG numbers when there isn't a road test to be found where your vehicle averages over 22 with no passengers and no load.
My upper limits are somewhere around 28-30 mpg. These have been lightly or moderately loaded trips over long highway distances. My lowest recordings have been in the 21-22 range. I usually hit that low only in the Winter and also not driving on the hwy.
My numbers are slightly higher than the average 1st gen CR-Ver, they are not more than 1-2 mpg off. There are others who actually do better.
Your 26 mpg claim seems much higher than what I've seen "getting out on the web" as Scape2 likes to suggest. According to polls published in industry magazines, lower than expected fuel economy was one of the most frequent complaints with the Escape/Tribute. This jives with what Ivcvi posted regarding road tests.
And BTW, I never said it struggled. You may be recalling the first few times I've mentioned trips like this. There are times when I have to downshift (poor me, I may sue for physical and emotional damages), but the vehicle zips right to the top when put in the correct gear.
A little extra air in the tires is all it took. The cruise control helps too.
I recently took a golf trip to the Lakeview Resort in WV. I (and another passenger) followed a bunch of other people down there on a rainy day and we were constantly speeding up and slowing down to stay behind the leader. He obviously wasn't using his CC. I don't know what kind of m'spg I averaged on that trip, but it certainly wasn't a little under 26. It was probably more like the advertised 22/23. The way back was better because I was alone and could use the CC. I didn't have any extra air in the tires either.
Those stories, on forums and in mags, you read about the poor gas mileage aren't telling you everything. My wife is a big time lead foot. She's the type that accelerates (and brakes) hard between stop signs/lights. Our mileage is poorer now that she's taken over driving it to work every day. However it is not less than 18 or 19 mpg like some of those stories report. It was right at 20-21 mpg when I was driving it every day.
The point is, the Escape's engine is very touchy when it comes to fuel consumption. You have to take it easy if you want to save fuel, especially during city driving. It's just hard to do that sometimes.
"There are times when I have to downshift (poor me, I may sue for physical and emotional damages), but the vehicle zips right to the top when put in the correct gear.
...therefore, it was struggling in the previous gear or you wouldn't have had to downshift.
The Escape will downshift (one gear only) on large hills too, but the engine rpms will only increase to about 2000-3000 (from about 1000-1500) during that climb. The CR-V's I've driven and rode in can't do that.
Please tell me you're not implying that the Escape is only at 1-1,500 while loaded with two people, a lot of beach and golf gear, a week's worth of food, drink, and clothing, the A/C on while cruising at 65 +mph. I find it hard to believe you're not over 2000.
What's your point? Of course it was struggling, I was in the wrong gear for the task I was asking it to accomplish (before I shifted). If you forced a V10 Viper to launch in 5th gear, it would "struggle". Were I driving an automatic, I would not have done anything other than step on the gas.
"The Escape will downshift (one gear only) on large hills too, but the engine rpms will only increase to about 2000-3000 (from about 1000-1500) during that climb."
Which begs the question, why can't Ford use better gearing? There is far more power in the upper rpm ranges than at the bottom. Is Ford afraid of revving their engines? Can they handle the stress? Will gas mileage plummet?
Of course, I'm not serious about those charges. I just don't see the problem with revving an engine when you need more power. That's where the power is. About the only drawback I see is the noise. You will start to hear the engine when revving a 2nd gen CR-V. But you always hear it with the Escape (along with wind and road noise), so I hardly see that as an advantage.
I'm helping scape out. This is where the 40 extra HP and lb/ft are useful.
Who cares about 0-60 in an SUV? I'm not racing mine, but rather, I am hauling things and I want it to be as smooth as possible.
"You will start to hear the engine when revving a 2nd gen CR-V. But you always hear it with the Escape (along with wind and road noise), so I hardly see that as an advantage."
It is to me. This is what I'm always saying about the CR-V. I don't appreciate a buzzing engine when I'm going up a hill. I have it with the Civic and I hate it. The Escape is much quieter and much less stressed in the same situation.
I still think you're all crazy if you think wind noise is excessive in the Escape. Drive a compact car on the highway for a day or two and you'll really learn about noise.
"I find it hard to believe you're not over 2000. "
I'm pretty sure it's under 2000 icvci. Of course, it does depend on you're speed. I'm not one to go too far over the limit in an SUV.
Also, the speed limit is still 55 in the metro areas around here. PA is behind the times in some ways.
Oh, now you're looking for pity!
No magic dust, just reasonable driving.
Some people just don't know how to control their right foot. Professional test drivers included.
Bad news for escapes, CRVs, and pretty much every other SUV without side airbags
How is that bad for CR-V owners? Side air bags are standard on the CR-V EX, not an option. But, Honda didn't send them a CR-V with side bags so, we don't know how it faired.
"Chrysler also defended its Jeep Wrangler's safety and said it would work with IIHS "to better understand how this new test and rating scheme will relate to real-life accident scenarios."
This is getting to be just like the old AMD/Intel benchmark wars where chips would be modified just to do well on the tests. Little attention was paid to real world performance.
Steve, Host
Or, are you saying "marginal" is an acceptable rating?
These results clearly show that side airbags are an important safety feature often overlooked. If the CRV EX has them standard, great, score one for Honda. It still doesn't obscure the fact that Escapes or CRV's "without" side airbags don't perform very well.
More: NEWS RELEASE
Steve, Host
Some may wonder why CR-V's with side air bags weren't tested, and the reason is because they aren't standard (except on the EX?) and because Honda didn't pay for a side air bag equipped CR-V to be tested.
Steve, Host
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make them an option, not everyone wants to pay the extra cash.
Steve, that explanation was in the original link and I wasn't sure why you highlighted it. Sorry if I came off as being insolent.
Right. I posted an article a while back (which everyone apparently ignored) which showed how the structures of SUV's are becoming more rigid so they do well in crash tests (and arguably in real world crashes). This is all fine and dandy, but the increased rigidity is causing more damage to smaller vehicles and the people who are in them. Not fine and dandy.
An effort is underway to do something about this by lowering the front frame members in SUVs to be more compatible with a car (something which Ford has been doing for years in their larger models by the way).
This new IIHS test was rumored to prove that a higher bumper will inflict more damage than the NHTSA's lower bumper test. It seems to have worked, although the story I watched about it on TV said that it may be some time before it is perfected.
"What's your point steve?"
Ford paid for the extra test and Honda didn't. Apparently they didn't test an EX either. In fact, For was the only company to pay for the extra test according to the article.
Also of note, the CR-V's side air bags only protect the thorax area. The Forester and Escape side bags protect from the thorax to the head.
How is a marginal rating "excellent" all of a sudden?
I wonder if this test will be only performed on SUV's, seems like the results for cars lower to the ground would be downright scary.
Results from that one are very interesting. It's nice to have a "second opinion" on side impacts. The IIHS test seems to give a better indication of what would happen if you get t-boned by a tall vehicle. The NHTSA test uses a barrier that is more in line with a car's height. The tests differ in the size of the driver, as well.
As for testing with and without airbags, it seems that some here are trying to put a moral spin on the decision to retest. I don't think that is going to lead anywhere. It's pretty obvious why Ford elected to have the Escape retested and it has nothing to do with moral obligations. We have no idea why Honda chose not to retest their vehicles.
As for the results, we know that the CR-V scored better than the similarly equipped Escape. We do not know how well the CR-V with airbags would fare. Speculation on the subject might be fun, but, in the end, we still won't know.
Steve - The CR-V EX has standard side airbags. They are an option on the LX model. (You seemed unsure on that.) Baggs is correct that they are a seat-deployed bag intended to protect the body and keep the body upright. However, it does not directly protect the head.
This matches pretty well with something Honda found in their home market. For a while, they offered a free airbag or free CD player. They were very frustrated to find that an overwhelming majority took the CD player.
Honda recently released a crash-alert system with the Inspire (a suped-up and loaded version of the US Accord), but the technology costs quite a bit. That story with the CD player vs airbag was one of their concerns with launching the new system.
Ford paid for the extra test and Honda didn't. Apparently they didn't test an EX either. In fact, For was the only company to pay for the extra test according to the article.
They all paid for the test. Ford paid twice.
An effort is underway to do something about this by lowering the front frame members in SUVs to be more compatible with a car (something which Ford has been doing for years in their larger models by the way).
Funny, the Excursion bumper was just about eye level when I was driving my Civic.
That said, it appears that the optional side air bags for the basest base CR-V only adds a couple hundred dollars to the price. Seems like cheap insurance.
Steve, Host
The institute buys their vehicles. So I was wrong, they didn't all pay for the test. Ford went the extra mile and shelled out the $2X,000 for the side bag equipped Escape.
I wonder why Honda didn't. Not enough that I want to hear speculation, I just wonder why they didn't. I'm going to email them and ask.
Ivcvi - The bumper of the excursion is high, but it has a blocker beam set low and behind the bumper. This prevents it from riding up over a car in the event of a crash. This and other designs have been used by many others. It's called "crash-compatibility". This issue has been a design consideration for many vehicles including the M-Class, MDX, Pilot, and a few others.
I'm not clear on why Baggs links this to the rigidity of a vehicle's chassis, though. Crash compatibility has more to do with the height of the vehicle's center of mass. They seem like two separate issues to me.
Meanwhile, no soup for you! ;-)
[edit] Ah, nope, the NHTSA buys their cars too. Oh well.
Steve, Host
And the drivers used those little flashy things to indicate which way they were turning and they used the left lane for passing only. Oh if we were only as considerate as the French. (You won't hear that often.)
An off topic question. Does anyone else get really ticked when smokers cash their butts out their windows? I hate it. Like they figure it's not littering.
Odie
Also, what happened to the Element?? I thought all Honda products were engineered perfect?? LOL@!! Just like the Pilot that failed here at Edmunds too!!! LOL!! I love the internet.. Nonone can stop you from spreading information!!
I was thinking the same thing. I recall reading that they are eventually going to test cars and that this test was really designed to "scare" people (manufacturers included). Or at least open their eyes.
"I'm not clear on why Baggs links this to the rigidity of a vehicle's chassis, though."
I don't know why I did that because they don't really have much in common. Sorry about that. The rigidity issue is separate.
However it is something to be wary of. As more and more vehicles are engineered to perform better in these tests, more and more people could potentially be put at risk.
icvci,
I can't stand the flying butts either. Especially when the windows are up, and non-recirc air is on causing the smell to come inside the cabin.
We should be allowed to throw lit firecrackers at their cars.
I believe the test simply pointed out the fact that side impact air bags make a HUGE difference. I fail to see your point in regards to k2rm's post. Did you mean icvci's post at 12:44?
How so? Even after the CR-V without sidebags, did marginal (opposed to the Escape which did poor), it still places higher on their list than the Escape. Without a doubt it would be much higher were it tested with the sidebags. I don't think any vehicles rating was actually worsened by the test.
No scrambling. Just wondering why you're gloating when your vehicle is still pulling up the rear.
Notice how the Pilot article is news. If it was an Explorer everyone would figure it's supposed to happen and it wouldn't be a story.
I hear that! I've got my little girl in the back and my car fills up with the stench of someone else's habit. Yuck! I want to make bumper stickers that say "My World Isn't Your Ashtray" But, I'm sure I'd get death threats. I think a web site with real pictures of smokers littering would be nice. List littering smokers by state, vehicle type, or color or plate number. A Hall of Shame of sorts.
I've heard of states considering deposits on butts, that's be nice. A nickle a butt.
The poor Element will always have a problem in a severe side impact: no "B" pillar will always give you a weaker impact point.
The test is conducted at 90 degree angle, impact in the middle of passenger compartment. In any other circumstance I don't think the head will hit the airbag in the Escape so perfectly. The longer horizontal air bag in CRV may povide more benefits in all those other situations IMHO.
And they disconnected the front air bag.
Wait a minute, crash test results might not represent real world situations?
No way! I can't believe it! Quickly, someone call CR to see what the official ruling is on all of this nonsense?!
Back on topic...
I have to disagree because the Escape's side air bag is designed to protect the head. The CR-V's is not.
How can something that is not able to protect the head actually better at protecting the head than something that is able to protect the head?
The car hit in their offset frontal crash is not moving either. It's like hitting a parked car that is butted up against a very rigid wall. How many times do you think that happens in the real world?
Blame it on the same dummies I guess.
I think scname is my new best friend around here!
I would not hold my breath waiting for a respones from Honda! They do not have to answer any emails. They are too busy plotting the exponential revenue graph i.e. their vehicles sales are up by double digits this year.
This is what always puzzled me about Honda: Their vehicles have not been the leaders in safety (except Odyssey). The sheet metal they use is "weak" as compared to the big three in Detroit. Yet buyers seem to disregard all this.
To make matters worse, Honda has never made safety a design priority (except Odyssey). Maybe this will change with renewed interest in IIHS crash tests and more emails to Honda.
ICVCI please let us know if you get a response from Honda
In the case of the CR-V, side airbags are available on every vehicle. People choose not to buy them. I believe that is true for most newer vehicles. Manufacturer offerings are not the issue. Educating the consumer and getting their priorities straight is the issue.