Here's a site with good specs on the Escape's cargo space. There's a few new cargo dimensions to add some depth to the discussion.
I noted that this site lists the Escape's final drive ratio as 2.93:1 for both the old 2.0 and 3.0 engines. Is that correct? Can anyone with an Escape owner's manual supply the correct drive ratio if that's not it?
varmint, Someone on another forum posted these gear ratios for the '03 Escape. I don't know if they are exact and I can't seem to find what the '04-'05 ratios are. Apparently they have changed though and they are not in the manual. There's some other manual that came with the Escape. I'll check it out when I get a chance.
As I have stated.. When I mean buy American made.. some automatically think I mean buy Ford, GM, or Dodge. This is the old way of thinking. Why do you come down on me for trying to keep my money here in the U.S. to support U.S. workers? Yes, Honda's and Toyota's and soon Hyundia's will be built here in the U.S. My whole point is to send a message. Buy the ones made here, keep your money here.
Wrong.. There are two, (2), TWO Escape/Tribute trouble rooms in the SUV section... There are no CRV trouble sections in the SUV chat room. This gives the Escape/Tribute much more publicity and accessiblity. Why haven't the Escape/Tribute trouble ROOMS been moved over to the Maintenance and repair room??
What the!?? 40HP - 25percent leaves 30HP?? what are you trying to do here? You mix and mash numbers to your advantage... and it is not working. Lets take another look at your post.. shall we?
You have got to be kidding me?? "Buying imports does not harm the economy"???? It doesn't take an economics major to figure this one out.. You buy a vehicle from lets say.... Korea. You pay $15,000 American dollars for this vehicle. How does buying a foreign vehicle made buy foreign labor help the U.S. economy? worker? We are all connected here. Take a minute to think about it. The worker gets paid, has medical, dental benefits along with a retirement account. Without these benefits the doctor doesn't get paid, the dentist doesn't get paid, the financial person doesn't get paid. And most of all an American doesn't get paid, no taxes get paid.. it goes on and on....
You say "It deletes 25percent, not the entire 40. Soooo... 40 -25percent is 30. NOT the 12-16 you state in the above post. IT is 10. And you state it is a 24-28 HP not the whole 40... 25 percent of 40 is 30, once again, not 24-28 as you stated. Then you go on to subtract another 15 percent for power train... Ok, The CRV gives 160HP. 160HP -15 percent leaves the CRV with 136HP. If you take the Escape down to 170HP - 15Percent it still leaves it 145HP. These are all based upon your assumptions and calculations. This is strictly HP. The CRV also looses torque in your 15 percent powertrain loss assumption... Next you move onto gearing... If the Escape is weaker on gearing, and supposedly not as powerful as the CRV then why can it tow 3,500lbs and the CRV cannot? Keep on trying to make the 4cyl in the cRv rated at 160HP and 160ft/lbs of torque stronger in your mind to the 200HP and 200ft/lbs of torque of the Escape! LOL!... Its not. Anyone who does their homework and takes a test drive will easily see this....
GM and Ford are huge multinational companies. If you start flag waving you'll hurt sales in say, China, and that'll hurt the stockholders, most of whom are likely in the US.
Dodge is a German company so I left them out of the equation :-)
Most of the Town Hall discussions are started by members not hosts. But I'm enjoying the dark conspiracy efforts.
Folks, just pulled this off one of my favorite boards. I don't know if its hogwash or not. If its true, it seems Honda is trying to have a dramatic refresh like Ford did w/ the 05 Escape. If these items are true, you'd have to be crazy to not wait for an 05 'V' if such is your persuasion. ********************
2005 Honda CR-V
Improved exterior styling: redesigned lamps, front bumper, headlight, side still, and front grille ABS, VSA and S-SRS standard on all trim levels Standard five speed automatic transmission 16” wheel for all trim levels plus new EX alloy wheel design and LX steel wheel design New Arch flare with one-piece mud guard Larger seatback pockets and improved ivory interior color New retractable grab rail New integrated keyless remote entry Steering wheel mounted audio controls and outside temperature gauge added to EX trim level New Cam-driven Real Time™ 4WD mechanism on all models (replaces hydraulic pump-type system) New Special Edition trim level that includes heated leather seats and door mirrors, leather steering wheel and shift knob, body-colored bumpers, side molding, door handles and hard spare tire cover Three new colors exterior – Silver Moss, Redondo Red Pearl, Sahara Sand Exclusive SE trim exterior color – Pewter Pearl
Okay, I'll run through this once more with you, since you seem to be having such a hard time with it.
The discussion in question originated with posts regarding the "feel" of both vehicles, not the towing, hauling, or any other measured capacity. Get that out of your mind right now. It's not part of the discussion. My post illustrates one reason why a few people have found very little difference in "feel" between the CR-V and V6 Escape.
I understand that my 24% rough estimate confused you. This time I'll use more precise figures.
The often quoted difference in specific output between the Escape V6 and CR-V I4 is 40 hp. This is not in dispute. However, that number reflects only what is happening at the flywheel. It's a measure of what the engine can do without the rest of the car hooked up to it. In short, it is not a complete story.
To finish that story, we have to look at the factors involved when hooking up the car to each engine. One of the major factors is weight. Weight saps power. You gave us an estimate of 100 lbs, so that is what I used for my calculations (the number I've found is 117 lbs).
As mentioned above (several times now) it is estimated that for every 6-8 lbs you add to a car, you reduce it's performance by the equivalent of 1 hp. Earlier, I used both 6 and 8 to give a range. This time, I'll split the difference and use 7 to simplify things for you. Watch out, here's comes that math stuff...
117/7 = 16.7142
Now, this is for your own safety, so please pay attention. I'm going to round that number off to an even 16 hp. Yes, I know that I'm actually short-changing the CR-V by doing this, but that's okay. I think my karma is strong enough to take the hit.
So, the Escape's extra bulk reduces its effective horsepower total by 16.
200 - 16 = 184
Another one of the factors we have in getting power from the engine to the wheels, is drivetrain losses. Typically, we estimate these at about 15% for an automatic transmission. It's a fair number.
Now, this is still incomplete. I freely admit that. We don't have all the factors in play. For example, tire size and gearing are not taken into account with this formula. All this does is provide us with a rough estimate. It is however, much closer than comparing engine specs measured at the flywheel.
Here's the formula:
HP minus weight disadvantage reduced by 15% = rough estimate of "feeling" while driving at the wheel.
Escape = (200 - 16) * .85 = 156.4
CR-V = (160 - 0) * .85 = 136.0
That leaves us with a difference of only 20.4 hp in terms of what the driver "feels". And, as mentioned above, that still doesn't include compensation for gearing (mechanical advantage).
If you want to do the same with torque (twisting force), I just learned a much more accurate formula we can use to calculate g's of thrust. But I've got a feeling your head is already spinning fast enough.
Seems like your numbers changed quite a bit there big guy... I understood your numbers... I corrected you and you finally used the correct percentages and numbers... I sure would like to see where you get the 1HP loss for each 7lbs from... Do you have a link to an auto tech publication that states this? or is this another of your guesstimations?? Boy, if the Escape only has a 20HP advantage over the CRV.. I wonder how it tows 2,000lbs more?? You say the CRV is "lowered geared".. If its gearing is superior to the Escape then why can't it tow?
"Boy, if the Escape only has a 20HP advantage over the CRV.. I wonder how it tows 2,000lbs more??"
That's a tow RATING, provided by the manufacturer, some of which are conservative, and some of which have been known to exaggerate in order to increase sales.
Of course, most people believe what they want to believe. Some even more so.
I used approximate figures and ranges in my first posts. And I made it clear that they were not meant to be exact numbers. You apparently ignored that.
Interesting that the more accurate numbers (by your own account) show an even lower advantage for the Escape.
As for hp loss with weight gain, you can find it for specific models on most any tuner site. It's essentially common knowledge.
As for towing, I shall repeat (once again):
"The discussion in question originated with posts regarding the "feel" of both vehicles, not the towing, hauling, or any other measured capacity. Get that out of your mind right now. It's not part of the discussion. My post illustrates one reason why a few people have found very little difference in "feel" between the CR-V and V6 Escape."
If you want to talk about tow ratings, we have to compare suspension designs, tires, and chassis construction in addition to engines. You don't have the background for that.
It depends on the manufacturer. Honda, for example, publishes a number that is based on what the vehicle can tow while it is loaded with four passengers and their luggage.
Some companies publish numbers assuming only the weight of a driver. I know that Buick uses the weight of a driver and one passenger in their numbers for the Rendezvous, but I think they use other factors for other vehicles.
Furthermore, it can vary greatly based on the country where the vehicle is sold. In parts of the UK, some CR-Vs are rated to tow something like 2,400 lbs. (Yes, Scape, that is an approximate number.) Here in NA, they know that we are more likely to sue manufacturers for accidents. So they intentionally reduce payload and towing capacities to prevent people from pushing limits and causing problems.
Given that towing capacity is not seen as a great advantage in this class of vehicle, some manufacturers are very conservative about the numbers they publish. Sure they may lose a few sales to other, higher rated vehicles. But they also reduce the possibility of a PR problem (and greater loss of sales).
In other classes, like full-size trucks, the manufacturer knows that towing is important. So they will work the numbers as high as possible.
Okay Scape, here's some more numbers for your crunching entertainment.
We're going to calculate thrust.
We've had many, many, many discussions about the engines in these vehicles. The power advantage of the Escape's V6 is well documented and accepted. As are the CR-V's advantages in weight and gearing. What hasn't been discussed is the degree to which each SUV's advantages have an impact. Is gearing more important that torque? Is weight more important than gearing? We've never had a way to be sure which factors were more important that the others.
Now, we do (sorta).
Now before I go any further, I'm going to say that this is another imperfect calculation. Some numbers will be approximate because we don't have exact data for these vehicles. Also, some factors cannot be added to the equation because we don't have them (like rolling resistance for the tires). To compensate for these, we will use the same numbers for each car or omit them. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it is as fair as we can get. Props to Robertsmx for sharing all this in another thread.
Another important caveat. We're talking about "thrust". This is not the same thing as speed. It is not a factor in towing capacity or hauling capacity. It is, however, the thing that each driver feels when they step on the gas.
Last caveat. This formula uses peak numbers. It assumes wide open throttle (WOT) at the rpm range where peak torque is found. Most drivers do not drive at WOT all day long. Factors like aggressive throttle response will also play into how a car feels during normal driving. This formula calculates maximum potential thrust, not everyday driving.
Got it?
First, we need to identify the factors of resistance. These are the things that hold the vehicle back when trying to accelerate.
The first of them is weight. Weight slows cars down. For our discussion I'm taking each car's curb weight (CW) and adding another 175 lbs to both. The 175 lbs represents the weight of a typical driver.
The next resistance factor is the size of the tires. Larger tires require more force to get them moving. For this, we need the diameter of the car's wheels. We'll call this TD (tire diameter).
Those are the resistance factors. Now we need the factors that push the car forward.
Obviously, torque should be one of these. Torque is a measure of force. It is not the amount of work an engine can perform. That is what horsepower measures. Torque is, however, very important in overcoming resistance.
Torque as measured at the flywheel isn't going to do us much good. We all know that the transmission sucks up some of the power on its way to the wheels. Typically, we estimate that loss at 15%. It could be higher or lower for either of these vehicles, but, since we don't know that for a fact, I'm just going to use the same number for both SUVs and call it even.
So, actual torque should be expressed as TQ * .85 for this discussion.
Our next source of thrust comes in the form of mechanical advantage, aka gearing. Shorter gearing reduces the resistance an engine must overcome to turn the wheels. Taller gearing provides better efficiency when the car has built up momentum.
To figure gearing, we must take the vehicles transmission gearing ratio and multiply it by the axle drive ratio (aka final drive). This gives us the overall drive ratio (ODR).
In order to calculate thrust, which is expressed in g's, we have to convert our tire diameter from inches into feet. We also have to compensate for the fact that we are using diameter instead of radius. You'll see the number 24 in this equation. It's there to accomplish that conversion.
In English, our calculation is essentially forward push divided by resistance factors.
Which comes to .42 g's of thrust, a very slight advantage over the Escape.
This was only the calculation for first gear. As the gears get larger, the amount of mechanical advantage drops. But, in this case, the CR-V keeps a slight advantage in each and every gear.
What I found interesting about this is what happened when I compared manual transmissions.
The AWD Escape with the new 2.3L engine and a 5 speed manual transmission is capable of .48 g's in first gear. That's even better than both the CR-V automatic and the V6 Escape. This version of the Escape is lighter, has lower gearing, and smaller tires. All that makes up for the lack of displacement.
I'm sorry, but there's never any killjoy for the Ford crowd here. The AWD CR-V LX with a 5 speed manual is the champ. It posts a somewhat amazing .61 g's thanks to its extremely low gearing and low weight.
FWIW, the 2005 CR-V is coming with a new 5 speed automatic, which may add even more to the CR-V's gearing advantage. Though I do expect it will gain some weight, and the tires may be slightly larger.
You are very good at using inaccurate calculations to prove your “facts”. You have spent some time to search this topic however there are some vital inconsistencies.
First of all, after writing this paragraph “Now before I go any further, I'm going to say that this is another imperfect calculation. Some numbers will be approximate because we don't have exact data for these vehicles. Also, some factors cannot be added to the equation because we don't have them (like rolling resistance for the tires). To compensate for these, we will use the same numbers for each car or omit them. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it is as fair as we can get. “
Your post will loose all it’s merit. You can’t make calculations with inconsistent data and missing variables. Physics is exact science; you CAN’T substitute things when you are calculating things to prove your hypothesis
Let’s go back your formula: Why did you use 24 on both formulas numerator part. This is against your explanation of 24
“In order to calculate thrust, which is expressed in g's, we have to convert our tire diameter from inches into feet. We also have to compensate for the fact that we are using diameter instead of radius. You'll see the number 24 in this equation. It's there to accomplish that conversion.”
Escape has bigger tires, bigger diameter and bigger radius. Therefore, numerator of Escape formula should be bigger than what you have found. This is one of the contradictions you have. If you use 24 for Escape than you have to use smaller number for CRV because CRV has smaller tires, smaller diameter and smaller radius. Using lower number will decrease numerator of CRV formula. This will change the entire result.
Basically, your findings don’t have any merit. You have used some substitutions and assumptions and manipulations to prove your point. And, the following is not a statement; it is your biased point.
“I'm sorry, but there's never any killjoy for the Ford crowd here. The AWD CR-V LX with a 5 speed manual is the champ. It posts a somewhat amazing .61 g's thanks to its extremely low gearing and low weight.
"You can’t make calculations with inconsistent data and missing variables. Physics is exact science; you CAN’T substitute things when you are calculating things to prove your hypothesis "
So, we were much better off just comparing hp and torque as measured at the flywheel?
I freely admit that this formula is short of perfection. For example, I use an estimate of 15% for drivetrain losses because we don't have the exact percentage for these vehicles. However, that 15% figure is generally respected as the "best guess" for most modern vehicles. You'll see it used all over these forums. This does not favor either vehicle and is as fair as we can get.
If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, read this article.
"Escape has bigger tires, bigger diameter and bigger radius. Therefore, numerator of Escape formula should be bigger than what you have found. This is one of the contradictions you have. If you use 24 for Escape than you have to use smaller number for CRV because CRV has smaller tires, smaller diameter and smaller radius."
24 is not the tire diameter. The tire diameter (TD) for the Escape is 29.0 inches. For the CR-V, it is 26.3 inches. Here's a link to one of the many places where you can figure the diameter of a tires using the specs given by the manufacturer.
The number 24 is there to convert inches to feet and diameter to radius. To convert inches to feet, we divide by 12. To convert diameter to radius, we divide by 2. Or we can just take both into account and divide by 24.
Rather than divide 29.0 inches by 24, I have multiplied the numerator by 24. It has the same net impact on the equation, but without the long, messy decimals.
Had I not added that conversion factor, we would have come up with a fairly abstract number. We could have made up our own name for it. In fact, let's call the unit PFMBs (pulled from my bottom).
PFMBs would have had the same accuracy in terms of comparison, but this unit would not mean anything to the average person. By using that conversion, we can express the results in g's, a measure with which most people have some familiarity.
I think the 5252 was referring to my puny post above; so my MV has a PFMB of .40 and a 5 speed manual CR-V has a PFMB of .60-something. All very noticeable by the SOTP (seat of the pants).
Instead of all this acronymous math, wouldn't it be easier to install a Tornado and slap some stickers on?
What do you mean? I tow with my Escape and it tows fine. I tow two watercraft and the trailer they sit on.. along with having gear in the back, 2-3 kids.... and sometimes gear ontop!......Like to see a CRV do that...:-)
My point was to help explain why some folks don't feel a big difference between the CR-V and Escape despite the two extra cylinders under one's hood.
It started (this time) with this comment:
”With the A/C on and 3 people in both vehicles, I really couldn't discern much difference between the two engines (Honda 4 banger and Ford Duratec V6). ((don't start flaming about the extra 40 HP and 36 ft/lbs of torque. I know all about it, I'm just relaying what I felt)) As much the Ford engine was the bigger selling point initially, I just couldn't 'feel' the big deal.”
Which begat yet another volley in the cylinder wars. Take a look at the very first post. This thread was founded on them.
For a long time the cylinder wars have been waged with hp and torque alone. There have been occasional skirmishes with other measures, like hp to weight ratios or torque to weight. These are usually an honest effort to recognize that what happens under the hood isn’t the end of the story. Weight also matters, after all. So that was better than hp and torque alone.
But even with weight taken into consideration, we have always known that there was more to the story. Because there is also a factor called gearing.
Gearing matters. Until now, we haven’t had a way to make gearing part of the discussion. What I just wrote is the way to do that. The formula takes the engine’s raw power (torque), and compensates for weight, and it also adds in mechanical advantage (gearing).
We now have a much more complete discussion than just hp and torque.
Wow, I didn't think my observations would create such a long / heated thread. I'm kinda impressed .... heh.
Anyway w/ all the enhancements due / rumored on the 05 CR-V we are pretty much leaning in that direction. I'd be 100% positive about it if Honda would say something constructive about the fire issue. I am hoping there is something in the 05's that's differant, but gauging by the following article I will assume nothing is changing.
That's a little scary don't ya think? I've had either Hondas or Toyotas now for the past 11 years. It's seems absurd to me that Honda can't figure this out. I hope they do it soon; the new CR-V looks really nice.
Actually I find them both somewhat scary. There has to be SOMETHING differant between the ones that 'light up' and the ones that didn't (model year to model year). I'm pretty sure techs haven't just started doubling up the gaskets during the recent model years. Finding out what is causing this will be good reading !!!
You can do the numbers and may find certain power bands that are good for the CRV, but it comes down to test driving the things and buying what you like. A loaded (with cargo) V6 Escape will always be faster than a loaded CRV if that is important to you. I noticed the other day that the Escape/Tribute auto will still be in 3rd gear while passing at just under 80 MPH (and if that's how you want to drive then maybe a sports car is better for you.) The Escape really out-handles the CRV at speeds over 60 and off-roading, in my opinion. At first I thought the CRV looked like a little mini-van, but now I've gotten used to it. As I said before, the upgraded sound system in the Escape/Tribute is fantastic.
If you read through the "Problems" thread, you'll see several possible explanations for why the 2002 models were not part of the investigation.
FWIW, not many of the vehicle which they *did* investigate had a stacked gasket. They found both stacked gaskets and pinched gaskets. 8 of the 22 cars they investigated were either undetermined, or the problems did not match with any others. I think the number of stacked gaskets found in the investigation was actually less than half the total number of cars inspected.
As for them finding a fix, that can take time. Here are a couple of examples:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published a recall affecting 1997-2001 Ford E250 and E350 vehicles. The affected vehicles were manufactured between April 1996 and November 2000. 151,000 automobiles are affected by this recall."
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published a recall affecting certain 1999-2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara vehicles manufactured between June 1998 and June 2000. This recall affects 59,888 vehicles."
In these cases, we have problems dating back to the mid and late 1990s. But those recalls were issued within the past few months.
Oh, yeah, absolutely. A test drive is the only way for an individual to determine what is acceptable for their own tastes. Tastes will vary.
But the formula helps explain why some drivers find no significant difference between two vehicles with obvious differences in power output. I know when I first read it, it sorta surprised me how big a difference gearing can make.
If any of you Ford Escape fans are planning to off road, your best bet is the 2004 Escape, since it still has the locking low range and full control over the 4WD. Get 'em while they last. AND with good rebates!
The 2005 has an automatic 4wd system; so does the CR-V. The Ford system for 2005 is electronically engaged, whereas the CR-V system is mechanical.
"an engine operates across a range of rpms, not just a specific one(unless it's a cvt). that's why i don't understand the point of your formula."
True. Though the same criticism works for any published horsepower or torque figure.
If you want to know the thrust at any point on a torque curve (engine range), then you need to know the shape of the torque curve. We've never found one for the Escape. Without that information, the best we can do is use the peak outputs.
In the case of the CR-V, peak torque comes at 3,600 rpms. Thus, peak thrust also comes at that rpm. For most drivers, 3,600 rpms is at the top point of their shifting pattern. They probably run the CR-V's engine between 2,000 and 3,400 rpms during normal driving. So they are pretty close to using peak output.
The Escape peaks much later on the rpm band. IIRC, the new V6 peaks at 4,850 rpms. Knowing that the ODR for the Escape is lower than the CR-V, I'm guessing that the average cruising rpm is lower, as well. If I had to guess, I'd say 1,800 - 3,000 rpms. (Does that seem reasonable?) So the Escape cruises at an rpm that's pretty far from it's peak. Not a big deal though, as V6 engines tend to have broad torque curves. And this lower rpm range is also good for gas mileage.
Since peak thrust is not all that different between the these vehicles, and the CR-V has easier access to its peak, the formula helps explain why some do not "feel" the extra power of the Escape's bigger engine.
I see that Consumer Reports has once again dropped the Escape from their recommended list of SUV's. It seems that the 04 Escape tipped up during a NHTSA's rollover test (both rear and AWD).
I'm not sure I'd rush out and buy one even with the rebate.
"It seems that the 04 Escape tipped up during a NHTSA's rollover test (both rear and AWD)."
I think you mean "both front and AWD".
Interesting that the Liberty has a slightly higher static factor for roll-over, but did not exhibit tipping during their dynamic tests. The VUE was about the same as the Escape.
No other small SUVs have been tested at this time.
Comments
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The overseas models do not have a tire on their rear door.
Here's a site with good specs on the Escape's cargo space. There's a few new cargo dimensions to add some depth to the discussion.
I noted that this site lists the Escape's final drive ratio as 2.93:1 for both the old 2.0 and 3.0 engines. Is that correct? Can anyone with an Escape owner's manual supply the correct drive ratio if that's not it?
Someone on another forum posted these gear ratios for the '03 Escape. I don't know if they are exact and I can't seem to find what the '04-'05 ratios are. Apparently they have changed though and they are not in the manual. There's some other manual that came with the Escape. I'll check it out when I get a chance.
1st - 2.889
2nd - 1.571
3rd - 1
4th - .698
FDR - 3.77
40HP - 25percent leaves 30HP?? what are you trying to do here? You mix and mash numbers to your advantage... and it is not working. Lets take another look at your post.. shall we?
You buy a vehicle from lets say.... Korea. You pay $15,000 American dollars for this vehicle. How does buying a foreign vehicle made buy foreign labor help the U.S. economy? worker? We are all connected here. Take a minute to think about it. The worker gets paid, has medical, dental benefits along with a retirement account. Without these benefits the doctor doesn't get paid, the dentist doesn't get paid, the financial person doesn't get paid. And most of all an American doesn't get paid, no taxes get paid.. it goes on and on....
Then you go on to subtract another 15 percent for power train...
Ok, The CRV gives 160HP. 160HP -15 percent leaves the CRV with 136HP. If you take the Escape down to 170HP - 15Percent it still leaves it 145HP. These are all based upon your assumptions and calculations. This is strictly HP.
The CRV also looses torque in your 15 percent powertrain loss assumption...
Next you move onto gearing... If the Escape is weaker on gearing, and supposedly not as powerful as the CRV then why can it tow 3,500lbs and the CRV cannot?
Keep on trying to make the 4cyl in the cRv rated at 160HP and 160ft/lbs of torque stronger in your mind to the 200HP and 200ft/lbs of torque of the Escape! LOL!... Its not. Anyone who does their homework and takes a test drive will easily see this....
Dodge is a German company so I left them out of the equation :-)
Most of the Town Hall discussions are started by members not hosts. But I'm enjoying the dark conspiracy efforts.
Steve, Host
If these items are true, you'd have to be crazy to not wait for an 05 'V' if such is your persuasion.
********************
2005 Honda CR-V
Improved exterior styling: redesigned lamps, front bumper, headlight, side still, and front grille
ABS, VSA and S-SRS standard on all trim levels
Standard five speed automatic transmission
16” wheel for all trim levels plus new EX alloy wheel design and LX steel wheel design
New Arch flare with one-piece mud guard
Larger seatback pockets and improved ivory interior color
New retractable grab rail
New integrated keyless remote entry
Steering wheel mounted audio controls and outside temperature gauge added to EX trim level
New Cam-driven Real Time™ 4WD mechanism on all models (replaces hydraulic pump-type system)
New Special Edition trim level that includes heated leather seats and door mirrors, leather steering wheel and shift knob, body-colored bumpers, side molding, door handles and hard spare tire cover
Three new colors exterior – Silver Moss, Redondo Red Pearl, Sahara Sand
Exclusive SE trim exterior color – Pewter Pearl
Check out the link below:
********************
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=265410
Jopopsy
The discussion in question originated with posts regarding the "feel" of both vehicles, not the towing, hauling, or any other measured capacity. Get that out of your mind right now. It's not part of the discussion. My post illustrates one reason why a few people have found very little difference in "feel" between the CR-V and V6 Escape.
I understand that my 24% rough estimate confused you. This time I'll use more precise figures.
The often quoted difference in specific output between the Escape V6 and CR-V I4 is 40 hp. This is not in dispute. However, that number reflects only what is happening at the flywheel. It's a measure of what the engine can do without the rest of the car hooked up to it. In short, it is not a complete story.
To finish that story, we have to look at the factors involved when hooking up the car to each engine. One of the major factors is weight. Weight saps power. You gave us an estimate of 100 lbs, so that is what I used for my calculations (the number I've found is 117 lbs).
As mentioned above (several times now) it is estimated that for every 6-8 lbs you add to a car, you reduce it's performance by the equivalent of 1 hp. Earlier, I used both 6 and 8 to give a range. This time, I'll split the difference and use 7 to simplify things for you. Watch out, here's comes that math stuff...
117/7 = 16.7142
Now, this is for your own safety, so please pay attention. I'm going to round that number off to an even 16 hp. Yes, I know that I'm actually short-changing the CR-V by doing this, but that's okay. I think my karma is strong enough to take the hit.
So, the Escape's extra bulk reduces its effective horsepower total by 16.
200 - 16 = 184
Another one of the factors we have in getting power from the engine to the wheels, is drivetrain losses. Typically, we estimate these at about 15% for an automatic transmission. It's a fair number.
Now, this is still incomplete. I freely admit that. We don't have all the factors in play. For example, tire size and gearing are not taken into account with this formula. All this does is provide us with a rough estimate. It is however, much closer than comparing engine specs measured at the flywheel.
Here's the formula:
HP minus weight disadvantage reduced by 15% = rough estimate of "feeling" while driving at the wheel.
Escape = (200 - 16) * .85 = 156.4
CR-V = (160 - 0) * .85 = 136.0
That leaves us with a difference of only 20.4 hp in terms of what the driver "feels". And, as mentioned above, that still doesn't include compensation for gearing (mechanical advantage).
If you want to do the same with torque (twisting force), I just learned a much more accurate formula we can use to calculate g's of thrust. But I've got a feeling your head is already spinning fast enough.
I sure would like to see where you get the 1HP loss for each 7lbs from... Do you have a link to an auto tech publication that states this? or is this another of your guesstimations??
Boy, if the Escape only has a 20HP advantage over the CRV.. I wonder how it tows 2,000lbs more?? You say the CRV is "lowered geared".. If its gearing is superior to the Escape then why can't it tow?
That's a tow RATING, provided by the manufacturer, some of which are conservative, and some of which have been known to exaggerate in order to increase sales.
Of course, most people believe what they want to believe. Some even more so.
I used approximate figures and ranges in my first posts. And I made it clear that they were not meant to be exact numbers. You apparently ignored that.
Interesting that the more accurate numbers (by your own account) show an even lower advantage for the Escape.
As for hp loss with weight gain, you can find it for specific models on most any tuner site. It's essentially common knowledge.
As for towing, I shall repeat (once again):
"The discussion in question originated with posts regarding the "feel" of both vehicles, not the towing, hauling, or any other measured capacity. Get that out of your mind right now. It's not part of the discussion. My post illustrates one reason why a few people have found very little difference in "feel" between the CR-V and V6 Escape."
If you want to talk about tow ratings, we have to compare suspension designs, tires, and chassis construction in addition to engines. You don't have the background for that.
Some companies publish numbers assuming only the weight of a driver. I know that Buick uses the weight of a driver and one passenger in their numbers for the Rendezvous, but I think they use other factors for other vehicles.
Furthermore, it can vary greatly based on the country where the vehicle is sold. In parts of the UK, some CR-Vs are rated to tow something like 2,400 lbs. (Yes, Scape, that is an approximate number.) Here in NA, they know that we are more likely to sue manufacturers for accidents. So they intentionally reduce payload and towing capacities to prevent people from pushing limits and causing problems.
Given that towing capacity is not seen as a great advantage in this class of vehicle, some manufacturers are very conservative about the numbers they publish. Sure they may lose a few sales to other, higher rated vehicles. But they also reduce the possibility of a PR problem (and greater loss of sales).
In other classes, like full-size trucks, the manufacturer knows that towing is important. So they will work the numbers as high as possible.
We're going to calculate thrust.
We've had many, many, many discussions about the engines in these vehicles. The power advantage of the Escape's V6 is well documented and accepted. As are the CR-V's advantages in weight and gearing. What hasn't been discussed is the degree to which each SUV's advantages have an impact. Is gearing more important that torque? Is weight more important than gearing? We've never had a way to be sure which factors were more important that the others.
Now, we do (sorta).
Now before I go any further, I'm going to say that this is another imperfect calculation. Some numbers will be approximate because we don't have exact data for these vehicles. Also, some factors cannot be added to the equation because we don't have them (like rolling resistance for the tires). To compensate for these, we will use the same numbers for each car or omit them. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it is as fair as we can get. Props to Robertsmx for sharing all this in another thread.
Another important caveat. We're talking about "thrust". This is not the same thing as speed. It is not a factor in towing capacity or hauling capacity. It is, however, the thing that each driver feels when they step on the gas.
Last caveat. This formula uses peak numbers. It assumes wide open throttle (WOT) at the rpm range where peak torque is found. Most drivers do not drive at WOT all day long. Factors like aggressive throttle response will also play into how a car feels during normal driving. This formula calculates maximum potential thrust, not everyday driving.
Got it?
First, we need to identify the factors of resistance. These are the things that hold the vehicle back when trying to accelerate.
The first of them is weight. Weight slows cars down. For our discussion I'm taking each car's curb weight (CW) and adding another 175 lbs to both. The 175 lbs represents the weight of a typical driver.
The next resistance factor is the size of the tires. Larger tires require more force to get them moving. For this, we need the diameter of the car's wheels. We'll call this TD (tire diameter).
Those are the resistance factors. Now we need the factors that push the car forward.
Obviously, torque should be one of these. Torque is a measure of force. It is not the amount of work an engine can perform. That is what horsepower measures. Torque is, however, very important in overcoming resistance.
Torque as measured at the flywheel isn't going to do us much good. We all know that the transmission sucks up some of the power on its way to the wheels. Typically, we estimate that loss at 15%. It could be higher or lower for either of these vehicles, but, since we don't know that for a fact, I'm just going to use the same number for both SUVs and call it even.
So, actual torque should be expressed as TQ * .85 for this discussion.
Our next source of thrust comes in the form of mechanical advantage, aka gearing. Shorter gearing reduces the resistance an engine must overcome to turn the wheels. Taller gearing provides better efficiency when the car has built up momentum.
To figure gearing, we must take the vehicles transmission gearing ratio and multiply it by the axle drive ratio (aka final drive). This gives us the overall drive ratio (ODR).
In order to calculate thrust, which is expressed in g's, we have to convert our tire diameter from inches into feet. We also have to compensate for the fact that we are using diameter instead of radius. You'll see the number 24 in this equation. It's there to accomplish that conversion.
In English, our calculation is essentially forward push divided by resistance factors.
Mathematically it is expressed like this:
(TQ * .85 * ODR * 24) / (CW + 175) * TD = Thrust in g's
Okay, in the next post, we'll put the stats for our vehicles into the equation.
Steve, Host
Escape
200 hp @ 6,000
193 ft-lbs @ 4,850
Tires = 235/70 R16 diameter = 29.0
Weight = 3,464
1st = 2.89
2nd = 1.57
3rd = 1.00
4th = 0.70
Final Drive Ratio = 3.77
CR-V EX
160hp @ 6000
162 ft-lbs @ 3600
Tires = 205/70 R15 diameter = 26.3
Weight = 3347
1st = 2.684
2nd = 1.535
3rd = 0.974
4th = 0.638
Final Drive Ratio = 4.438
Here is the way the math works for the Escape in first gear:
(193 * .85 * 10.8953 * 24) / (3464 + 175) * 29.0
Which comes to .40 g's of thrust.
Here is what the numbers look like when we plug in the specifications for the CR-V:
(162 * .85 * 11.911592 * 24) / (3347 + 175) * 26.3
Which comes to .42 g's of thrust, a very slight advantage over the Escape.
This was only the calculation for first gear. As the gears get larger, the amount of mechanical advantage drops. But, in this case, the CR-V keeps a slight advantage in each and every gear.
What I found interesting about this is what happened when I compared manual transmissions.
The AWD Escape with the new 2.3L engine and a 5 speed manual transmission is capable of .48 g's in first gear. That's even better than both the CR-V automatic and the V6 Escape. This version of the Escape is lighter, has lower gearing, and smaller tires. All that makes up for the lack of displacement.
I'm sorry, but there's never any killjoy for the Ford crowd here. The AWD CR-V LX with a 5 speed manual is the champ. It posts a somewhat amazing .61 g's thanks to its extremely low gearing and low weight.
FWIW, the 2005 CR-V is coming with a new 5 speed automatic, which may add even more to the CR-V's gearing advantage. Though I do expect it will gain some weight, and the tires may be slightly larger.
Sorry to keep you in suspense there, Steve.
Wanna do my '99 Quest now?
Steve, Host
Whoohoo!
I think :-)
Steve, Host
First of all, after writing this paragraph “Now before I go any further, I'm going to say that this is another imperfect calculation. Some numbers will be approximate because we don't have exact data for these vehicles. Also, some factors cannot be added to the equation because we don't have them (like rolling resistance for the tires). To compensate for these, we will use the same numbers for each car or omit them. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it is as fair as we can get. “
Your post will loose all it’s merit. You can’t make calculations with inconsistent data and missing variables. Physics is exact science; you CAN’T substitute things when you are calculating things to prove your hypothesis
Let’s go back your formula: Why did you use 24 on both formulas numerator part. This is against your explanation of 24
“In order to calculate thrust, which is expressed in g's, we have to convert our tire diameter from inches into feet. We also have to compensate for the fact that we are using diameter instead of radius. You'll see the number 24 in this equation. It's there to accomplish that conversion.”
Escape has bigger tires, bigger diameter and bigger radius. Therefore, numerator of Escape formula should be bigger than what you have found. This is one of the contradictions you have.
If you use 24 for Escape than you have to use smaller number for CRV because CRV has smaller tires, smaller diameter and smaller radius. Using lower number will decrease numerator of CRV formula. This will change the entire result.
Basically, your findings don’t have any merit. You have used some substitutions and assumptions and manipulations to prove your point. And, the following is not a statement; it is your biased point.
“I'm sorry, but there's never any killjoy for the Ford crowd here. The AWD CR-V LX with a 5 speed manual is the champ. It posts a somewhat amazing .61 g's thanks to its extremely low gearing and low weight.
Hey, he's trying! Give varm some credit!
tidester, host
So, we were much better off just comparing hp and torque as measured at the flywheel?
I freely admit that this formula is short of perfection. For example, I use an estimate of 15% for drivetrain losses because we don't have the exact percentage for these vehicles. However, that 15% figure is generally respected as the "best guess" for most modern vehicles. You'll see it used all over these forums. This does not favor either vehicle and is as fair as we can get.
If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, read this article.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43845/articl- e.html
"Escape has bigger tires, bigger diameter and bigger radius. Therefore, numerator of Escape formula should be bigger than what you have found. This is one of the contradictions you have.
If you use 24 for Escape than you have to use smaller number for CRV because CRV has smaller tires, smaller diameter and smaller radius."
24 is not the tire diameter. The tire diameter (TD) for the Escape is 29.0 inches. For the CR-V, it is 26.3 inches. Here's a link to one of the many places where you can figure the diameter of a tires using the specs given by the manufacturer.
http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html
The number 24 is there to convert inches to feet and diameter to radius. To convert inches to feet, we divide by 12. To convert diameter to radius, we divide by 2. Or we can just take both into account and divide by 24.
Rather than divide 29.0 inches by 24, I have multiplied the numerator by 24. It has the same net impact on the equation, but without the long, messy decimals.
Had I not added that conversion factor, we would have come up with a fairly abstract number. We could have made up our own name for it. In fact, let's call the unit PFMBs (pulled from my bottom).
PFMBs would have had the same accuracy in terms of comparison, but this unit would not mean anything to the average person. By using that conversion, we can express the results in g's, a measure with which most people have some familiarity.
Quite a few things. Honestly, I'm not sure which you are referring to.
If you mean the RPM at which torque and hp curves pass, then, yep, I'm quite familiar with it.
http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html
Otherwise, I think I need to be clued in on the joke.
Instead of all this acronymous math, wouldn't it be easier to install a Tornado and slap some stickers on?
Steve, Host
Never let it be said that I allowed Scape to remain uneducated.
It started (this time) with this comment:
”With the A/C on and 3 people in both vehicles, I really couldn't discern much difference between the two engines (Honda 4 banger and Ford Duratec V6). ((don't start flaming about the extra 40 HP and 36 ft/lbs of torque. I know all about it, I'm just relaying what I felt)) As much the Ford engine was the bigger selling point initially, I just couldn't 'feel' the big deal.”
In this post:
jopopsy Aug 28, 2004 6:03pm
Which begat yet another volley in the cylinder wars. Take a look at the very first post. This thread was founded on them.
For a long time the cylinder wars have been waged with hp and torque alone. There have been occasional skirmishes with other measures, like hp to weight ratios or torque to weight. These are usually an honest effort to recognize that what happens under the hood isn’t the end of the story. Weight also matters, after all. So that was better than hp and torque alone.
But even with weight taken into consideration, we have always known that there was more to the story. Because there is also a factor called gearing.
Gearing matters. Until now, we haven’t had a way to make gearing part of the discussion. What I just wrote is the way to do that. The formula takes the engine’s raw power (torque), and compensates for weight, and it also adds in mechanical advantage (gearing).
We now have a much more complete discussion than just hp and torque.
Anyway w/ all the enhancements due / rumored on the 05 CR-V we are pretty much leaning in that direction. I'd be 100% positive about it if Honda would say something constructive about the fire issue. I am hoping there is something in the 05's that's differant, but gauging by the following article I will assume nothing is changing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5926843/
As for the oil fires, nobody knows exactly what to change.
Well, the problem is certainly scary. The fact that no one (it's not just Honda investigating this) has been able to resolve it doesn't surprise me.
The export 2.0 can tow 1500 lbs normally or about 3000 lbs if the trailer has it's own brakes.
FWIW, not many of the vehicle which they *did* investigate had a stacked gasket. They found both stacked gaskets and pinched gaskets. 8 of the 22 cars they investigated were either undetermined, or the problems did not match with any others. I think the number of stacked gaskets found in the investigation was actually less than half the total number of cars inspected.
As for them finding a fix, that can take time. Here are a couple of examples:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published a recall affecting 1997-2001 Ford E250 and E350 vehicles. The affected vehicles were manufactured between April 1996 and November 2000. 151,000 automobiles are affected by this recall."
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published a recall affecting certain 1999-2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara vehicles manufactured between June 1998 and June 2000. This recall affects 59,888 vehicles."
In these cases, we have problems dating back to the mid and late 1990s. But those recalls were issued within the past few months.
But the formula helps explain why some drivers find no significant difference between two vehicles with obvious differences in power output. I know when I first read it, it sorta surprised me how big a difference gearing can make.
The 2005 has an automatic 4wd system; so does the CR-V. The Ford system for 2005 is electronically engaged, whereas the CR-V system is mechanical.
True. Though the same criticism works for any published horsepower or torque figure.
If you want to know the thrust at any point on a torque curve (engine range), then you need to know the shape of the torque curve. We've never found one for the Escape. Without that information, the best we can do is use the peak outputs.
In the case of the CR-V, peak torque comes at 3,600 rpms. Thus, peak thrust also comes at that rpm. For most drivers, 3,600 rpms is at the top point of their shifting pattern. They probably run the CR-V's engine between 2,000 and 3,400 rpms during normal driving. So they are pretty close to using peak output.
The Escape peaks much later on the rpm band. IIRC, the new V6 peaks at 4,850 rpms. Knowing that the ODR for the Escape is lower than the CR-V, I'm guessing that the average cruising rpm is lower, as well. If I had to guess, I'd say 1,800 - 3,000 rpms. (Does that seem reasonable?) So the Escape cruises at an rpm that's pretty far from it's peak. Not a big deal though, as V6 engines tend to have broad torque curves. And this lower rpm range is also good for gas mileage.
Since peak thrust is not all that different between the these vehicles, and the CR-V has easier access to its peak, the formula helps explain why some do not "feel" the extra power of the Escape's bigger engine.
I'm not sure I'd rush out and buy one even with the rebate.
If one is going to buy a Ford Escape for off roading, the 2004 is better for the job. That's all I was saying.
I think you mean "both front and AWD".
Interesting that the Liberty has a slightly higher static factor for roll-over, but did not exhibit tipping during their dynamic tests. The VUE was about the same as the Escape.
No other small SUVs have been tested at this time.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/index.cfm