Crash tests are another good measure of averages, but no two crashes are the same. I for one do use crash test data in my purchase decision, but I don't look for all 5's and immediately buy that vehicle because it is said to be the safest. It's all fine and dandy that they perform these tests for us, but unfortunately they do them in controlled facilities, usually with at least one inanimate object. That's not how a crash out on the street (level or not) happens.
The CR-V did get one more star for the passenger side (front), and maybe it will get a better rating from the IIHS. As long as I don't consistently see 3 stars or less anywhere on the report, I don't see a need to worry about it. Ever since the Windstar started touting the 5 stars all around thing, everyone has been trying to do the same. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are in some kind of unbreakable safety cocoon either.
varmint, I haven't checked, but do you happen to know if they use a numbered scoring system when deciding how many stars a vehicle will receive? If they do, how far apart were the Escape and CR-V in the front-passenger test? I'm just curious to see if the CR-V was at the low end of five stars, and/or if the Escape was at the high end of four stars.
I also think we should include security with safety. I know that you can get a security system in the CR-V (EX) (dealer add-on, why do they do that crap?) along with a remote entry system/panic button. I don't really know what all of that consists of, but I do know that the Escape (all models) takes security to the next level by including the securi-lock system (key with a micro chip in it) as standard equipment along with the remote entry/panic button. This ensures that no one will ever be able to start the engine without the proper key, or having to go through 72 quadrillion possible codes. Even if they do happen to get around the engine immobilizer and alarm. There's nothing to prevent it from being towed yet though.
Baggs - Good question. If you click on the vehicle descriptions for that NHTSA link, it'll show you the exact impact ratings, femur loads, chest decel, etc.
Personally, I don't put too much weight on the differences. They're only numbers to me. I agree that anything above a four star rating is respectable. The differences between one five star vehicle and another are not that significant IMHO.
Security is important, but I think of it as a separate category. FYI, the CR-V also uses a chip.
The Mustang and RSX are in direct competition, and have been since the Integra days. They are both sport coupes with similar prices. RSX Type S $23,670, Mustang GT Coupe $23,845. 0-60: RSX 6.5sec Mustang 5.4 - 5.8 (depending on the magazine) ZX2 7.4 - 7.8 (again, depends on the mag but they're all old and gone now anyway).
Yes it's impressive what Honda can do with a four cylinder engine in terms of horsepower, but they always seem to forget about the torque. I brought up the ZX2 because it had closely matched hp and torque at around 130 each. It too was a normally aspirated engine (which is the same as the base engine in the Escape) that outdid itself because it had some torque to go with the horses, and they peaked closer together. If Honda were to somehow do the same, and keep it "Honda smooth" because the Zetec was pretty buzzy, then Mustang owners can start to worry (a Honda V8 would be trouble too). I doubt that will ever happen though.
Don't mess with me when it comes to Mustangs (just ask my wife). These are two completely different animals that happen to compete in the same market.
Anyway, I'll try to stop here, as this forum should be used to discuss something else.
varmint, There's a little too much technical info there for me to go through right now. I was hoping for something like a simple points scale. Oh well, thanks for the info.
When did Honda start using chips in the keys? I couldn't find any mention of it, and our cheesy Honda salesman told me "no" when I asked if one was available. Is it part of the security system option?
I was not "messing" with your Mustang theories only scape2's because he was comparing the RSX to a "Supercharged Mustang"!!!!!!A little out of the RSX's league don't you think? As for the base model maybe but power is still out of its league as well. V8 to 4 is a no-no!
I understand what you mean about low tourque and high revs in Honda engines BUT that is what they are famous for and enthousiasts love that. To rev an engine so high with a good intake and exaust is exciting and to do this over and over again without having problems is even better! BUT nothing beats the sound of a thunderous V8 roar! My first car was a modified Z28 so Honda has not been the only car I have ever had! I just like them for how they will seem to last forever! Honda will never try to compete with the Mustang and even though the price is the same, I don't think that Honda really compares it to the Mustang.
Anyways, off topic or what!!? You compared the Duratec (??) to the Honda CRV engine!! There is no comparison here in my opinion for sure!! I don't think hardly anyone buys these with the 4!! I still think for a V6 it is noisy at acceleration.
From the article: "Japan's second-largest carmaker said last month a continued supply shortage will likely limit its North American sales to a record 1.49 million vehicles in the fiscal year ending in March, compared with 1.37 million units the previous fiscal year."
I must have missed scape's comparo. That is a little obsurd. I don't really think Honda is aiming at the Mustang either, but when you search for competing vehicles in a lot of places, those two come up together because they are classified the same and cost about the same. So no, they should not be compared and we were way off base in doing so. Sorry everyone.
I wasn't comparing the Zetec four in the Escape to the CR-V four. There is no comparison there because that engine does not belong in the Escape. I'm just trying to show that the horsepower numbers aren't always what they seem to be. You gotta have some torque too (which the CR-V finally does). I guess I'm just not an enthusiast. I can't stand having to rev those little engines until they almost fly off their mounts just to get going at a reasonable pace. The technology interests me though.
I really don't find the V6 to be all that noisy to tell you the truth. But I don't really remember what the new CR-V sounded like to make a comparison either. My main concern was getting up hills with authority. I felt that the CR-V was a big loser in that department.
I checked up on the CR-V keys. Yes, they have a chip (copy protection and built-in imobilizer). There are details about a few other features at the bottom of this page.
Hey baggs, don't worry about the comparo, I was sure you did not see the post that scpae 2 was comparing the RSX to! Absurd is the word!
I too have a little problem comparing the Mustang to the RSX but as you say price wise....The Mustang is still based on 60's technology of the ponycar era (not a bad thing!) and Acura (Honda) goes for the higher tech stuff. Two different approaches and both work.
I have to disagree with you about the V6 however. My experience was that it was quite noisy compared to other V6's but VERY powerful no doubt. For some reason, I ran into some pretty big problems in the 2 days I had it and that really gave me a bad taste in my mouth so sorry I guess but I am still a little paranoid about this car. One of my buds had to have his computer re-programmed for a second time on Monday and that made me feel even more worried about this vehicle. He said that the Ford service department was really good but he has always had Hondas and is not used to going to the garage so often! He bought this vehicle because he needs to tow more than the CRV can handle. This is where Honda loses out...TOWING. I mean, you have the CRV 1500 pounds and then the Pilot (4500 I think) BUT there is no comparison because of price! However, not many people tow so I guess you could look at it both ways. I only tow a snowmobile which is no problem for the CRV.
I thought Scape2 said he HAD tons of links to the Escape's superiority? Now he says the links are going to START rolling in?
I'll never understand this arguement that a vehicle with a larger engine and more cylinders is more powerful than a smaller engine with less cylinders. In a word, DUH. I think what Scape 2 is failing to see in all his arguements is that despite having a smaller engine Honda is keeping right even or right on the tail of the larger engine vehicles. If I have something large to tow on a regular basis I'm not buying a CR-V, but I'm not buying an Escape either. I'll buy a vehicle with enough power to not notice the trailer behind it on hills.
Furthermore, here's some secret hidden info for you on the CR-V: Honda is looking at recalling about 2 million of them due to an ignition switch problem. I guess we can expect the CR-V to plummet in sales and consumer confidence since that's now public......
I'm sure Scape2 has plenty of links. He's probably just looking for the point that I asked him to supply with them.
As for the recall, I've only read that report from one individual. Have you seen it anywhere else? I'd wait for confirmation. It may simply end up another TSB.
Just wanted to say that you are right about the little 4 keeping up quite well to the big 6. I don't agree with what you mentioned about the recall. Even if that were to be true than it would not have an impact on sales as those parts are manufactured for Honda but not by them. I am curious to find out where you got this info from.
The first CRV had a major recall with a wire problem during its second year and that did not hurt sales at all. A good example of this is the Grand Cherakee and its numerous huge recalls and it still sells well no matter how terrible it is for the price!
The Escape had some pretty major recalls as well and it was the number one seller in April.......so I don't think that they really hurt sales as long as companies are fixing problems as they arise, than consumers are happy.
As far as I am concerned varmit, I have heard no complaints from owners about an ignition problem but you never know........after all, it is a machine and not even Honda is absemt of problems from time to time.
As I understand it, the problem affects just about all Hondas. There are a few electrical components which may become "fried" after 75-100K miles of use. This part is used in many vehicles, not just the CR-V.
I had never heard of the problem until I was pointed to a web page regarding the issue. According to the web site, this is an epidemic. Seems odd that I would never have of it before, but stranger things have happened. We have to remember that the Internet community realy is a small sample of the total consumer population.
It appears that Honda dealers have been treating it as a regular service issue. After 100,000 miles, you expect a few things to wear out. I guess no one thought much of it. It'll be interesting to see what the final outcome is.
As for recalls affecting sales... Yes, they do have some affect. It'll typically cap the number of sales, but not crush them. Imagine how huge the Escape/Tribute could've been if there hadn't been those six recalls in a row.
It usually takes a large number of them before the public takes notice. Even if the press starts writing about them, some folks don't get the word. So recalls are not the kiss of death.
The Odyssey is a good example of this too. It had six recalls, but still sells very well and somehow still gets the thumbs up by some magazines that shall not be named.
hondaman,
The Escape recalls were not "major" in numbers. A couple of them were for what could be considered "major" components though. Here they are in some detail if you have never seen the numbers before.
Yes the odyssey was a great example. The engine was crap at first and that is a major blow for sure. However, they fixed it and now it is used in the MDX and Pilot as well so I am convinced that manufacturers can solve these things.
The Escape/Tribute allso has a lingering problem that may be recalled and that is one of engine hesitation cause by the computer going off-line. This may also end up in a recall soon.
I just can't see a "perfect" car so these things are bound to happen to the best of them. If only you knew half the problems an airplane goes through everyday, you wouldn't fly!
I don't think this will have ANY impact on sales. I thought I had made that statement sarcasticly enough that it wouldn't be mis-understood. My bad.
Varmint, I've only seen this posted in 3 places and admittedly I don't have more info. One of the places we both share in common it was reported by Bing, and he seems to check his facts before posting such things. I also saw a website but couldn't for the life of me tell you where I saw it anymore....
Freeber - The author is Lindsay Thachuck, who also posts under several other names. Bing, has talked with him about it and confirmed that the problem is the real deal, but I haven't seen anyone confirm the recall.
Baggs - The problem results in toasted (carbonized) connections. No fire. Symptoms include inability to start and the possibility of stalling while in motion.
Oh, and there has never been a big problem with Ody's engine, AFAIK. That block has been in use in the RL for years. The significant problem with the Ody revolved around the tranny.
Varmit, my dealer told me that there were problems with the engine in the first year as he had to do 4 transplants covered by honda. Something to do with the heads or something but I have no proof of this.
been away... I have not gone anywhere. over 50 posts!! I can't read them or respond to all of them. A "small 4" keeping up with a "big 6" Please... 2.4 liters, vs 3.0 liters.. do you realize what you are saying? .6 liters difference. Why is ok for hondaman to keep bringing up the V6 vs the 4cyl?? I get hammered on for bringing this topic up.. Just keep justifying in your mind the 2.4 is better, more powerful, faster.. than the 3.0 in the Escape.. Anyone who does the math and reads reviews will see the truth. 200ft/lbs of torque.. 200HP vs 160HP/161ft/lbs of torque.. weight, 170lb difference.. HP/Torque curve.. Hmmm... I am finding links, and am going to post them very soon, many raving reviews about the Escape/Tribute, along with its road manners and the advantages of the V6.. Just trying to pick the right ones to show you... The Escape is SUPERIOR!... Why is it ok for Honda to have a recall but not Ford? there is a huge double standard in this room.. Ford recalled vehicles because of an ignition switch and it was plastered all over the paper and news.. Why the He... haven't we heard of this? Why aren't Honda owners being notified? My manager friend let the cat out of the bag.. 77% of last months CRV sales at his dealership were to "previous Honda owners"... oops..
How did they rate these vehicles, I can't seem to find the criteria or judging values! Seems to me like this is a marketing thing more then an actual test for the "best"!!!!
Why is there a link for Escape/Tribute problems but none for the CRV?? There are 1491 people that have wrote something!!! Tell me scape2! Is there one that I have missed somewhere in the TownHall?
By the way scape, I have to clarify that the only reason why people on this board don't disown me for the discussion of the 4 versus the 6 is because I have NEVER said that it was not more powerful!!! I thought it was but after 3 engine problems leading to one towing, I don't think it is reliable that's all. HOWEVER, I was reading an old MotorTrend magazine and they posted CRV at 8.9 and the Escape at 9 sec.!!!!! I am confused but I am sure you will have an explanation for me.
Actually, there is a Problems & Solutions discussion in the CR-V Owners Club area and another one in Maintenance & Repair. Some models have separate problems topics but lots don't. Members mostly organize Town Hall the way they see fit, so you may have missed them - different strokes (kinda like CR-V vs Escape). Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Hondaman - Most owners post their problems in the main forum, rather than in a separate thread. You can't really count posts as an adequate measure. Many posts in "problem" threads are about fixes rather than the issues.
Diploid - Edmunds has a similar owner-survey type of thing.
Scape2 - I think you've let at least 7 or 8 posts go by without telling us the hp and torque ratings are for the Escape. You feeling okay?
Because the 4 cyl Ford is lightyears behind the Honda! The Honda is very close to the V6 of Ford so that says a lot for it. Reliability is no comparison either.
The Honda 4cyl is close in performance (0-60, 1/4 mile, etc.), but we have already discussed that several factors like tire diameter, gearing, etc. could lead to that too. As far as using a truck for what a truck should be used for (most of us don't all the time), the Honda engine is "light years" behind the Ford. Reliability is still up in the air if you ask me due to the fact that the Honda engine is so new. Although Honda does have a very good, but not perfect, history with its engines. The Duratec has been around for a long time, and has proven pretty reliable for Ford (however some of the parts attached to it have not, happens to all companies). They wouldn't keep using it in everything from the Taurus to the Jaguar S Type if it wasn't.
Ford does need to put a larger four cyl under the Escape hood and no one is really arguing with that.
some in this forum whom try over and over again to justify their purchase of a Honda CRV... The 4cyl is nowhere near "close" to the V6 in the Escape.. We have gone over this time and time again.. The only way the CRv comes even "close" is with a 5spd transmission.. As far as towing, nope, hauling, nope, being able to hold speeds up steep inclines with heavy loads, nope.. a 201HP/200ft/lb of torque V6 compared to a 160HP/161ft/lb of torque 4cyl... close? Nope.. Look at the HP/torque curves also.. close.. nope... The V6 is superior to the 4cyl in the CRV no question about it.. There are those whom just keep justifying thier purchase and keep trying to convince themselves the 4cyl in the CRv is more powerful then the V6 in the Escape.. I fully agree the Zetec 2.0 in the Escape is a joke.. But... Sales numbers show over 80 percent of Escapes sold are with the V6..
at least one person in this forum who keeps claiming people with CR-V's think the 4 Cylinder is more powerful than a 6 Cylinder. That's odd because nobody claims it's more powerful. Even more odd is the fact that somebody would purchase an Escape OR a CR-V for regular hauling of "heavy loads". I _CAN_ run Windows 2000 on a Pentium 200. Doesn't mean it makes sense.
Varmint: Well you jinxed it by bringing up his lack of mentioning HP/Torque....
I thought he might take that as a hint about how little impact such statements make. Let's take his points one at a time.
"The only way the CRv comes even "close" is with a 5spd transmission.."
Well I guess it depends on how you define close. The AT CR-V's average 0-60 time is slower than the Escape's average. No doubt about that. However, the only head to head comparo we've seen actually found the CR-V to have a lower time. So, on a good day, the CR-V is certainly competitive.
The average times for the MT CR-V are consistently in the mid 8 second range. This is about the same as the Escape's overall average.
Another thing I've noted recently, is that the Escape seems to be getting slower. All the reviews I've found have the 2002 Escape running 0-60 in the low 9 second range. The earlier models seem to average much lower times. I know that Ford changed the tires on the Escape a while back. Have the 2002 changes brought anything else which might be slowing them down?
"As far as towing, nope, hauling, nope.."
I can certainly agree to towing. I'm not sure waht he means by "hauling". If he's talking about interior capacity, there is room for debate.
"being able to hold speeds up steep inclines with heavy loads, nope..."
This I have yet to see proven.
"a 201HP/200ft/lb of torque V6 compared to a 160HP/161ft/lb of torque 4cyl... close? Nope.."
No one ever said that the peak ouputs were close. It's how well the car makes use of that power that is the difference.
"Look at the HP/torque curves also.. close.. nope..."
Show me a torque curve for the V6 Escape. I'm asking for proof of this claim. I have several for the CR-V (which have been posted before) and all of them show a wide, flat torque curve. 90% of peak torque is available from 2250 - 5500 rpms. I have doubts that the one-size-fits-all valve timing and lift design in the Escape can make such a claim.
"The V6 is superior to the 4cyl in the CRV no question about it.."
We've been over this so many times, it's not funny. Please define "superior". Because it seems to me that the CR-V's 2.4 is easily superior in the areas of fuel economy, NVH, and emissions. About the only thing that the Escape does significantly better is towing.
Baggs - Agreed. The CR-V's 2.4 is a new design and we cannot assume that it will be as reliable as the last model's 2.0. That said, the writing on the wall certainly looks better.
You have it down my friend(varmit). Scape, stop repeating the same things over and over WE ALL KNOW THE FIGURES AND NONE OF US DENY THAT!!!!!!! I think that "SUPERIOR" is a big word and someone mentioned that the Honda engine is too new to talk about reliabilty SORRY this engine has been used 2 years before going into the RSX in Japan so it has been proven! Want to talk about reliabilty?? Why did the Tribute I rented konk out three times leading to a towing at 3000km's?????????????? never heard of a Honda doing that!
Lastly, I think that a 4 cyl staying about a 1/2 to 3/4 a second behind a V6 with a 40hp advantage is pretty good in my books no matter who makes it. I still can't figure out how MotorTrend with an auto CRV got 8.9 sec. to Fords 9.0 sec.!!!???
How many people actually tow things up hills all the time??? Of course any normal human being would not buy either vehicle if they wanted to tow something that heavy. As I said before, I tow my snowmobile and four wheeler (Honda of course!)with a 2001 CRV and never had a problem keeping 100km/hour (60 for you Americans) with great gas mileage as well. That is the wrong argument for this board!
First of all, the CRV is NOT a truck! Second, I think that Honda has always surpassed Ford in reliability of engines and JD Power will back me up on that one.......check out their web-site. I am not saying Ford is not good so please read this properly (Mustang!! Very fun car!). I am just saying that Honda is a small company compared to Ford and they only make about 1/10th of the number of vehicles (configurations) and almost all of their vehicles use basically the same engine set-ups (vtec.....) so it is easier to keep reliabilty. That is the Honda way. How many old Civic's do you see on the road owned by kids that beat the daylights out of them?? 1000's........! and they still run.
There is NO such thing as a perfect engine. For arguments sake, that would be the Maxima's V6 cause it is great!
Slow down, those last three posts were very scape2-like. Do you two know each other? Just kidding.
I don't think using a rental as your example is a fair way to judge quality. Who knows what may have been done to that vehicle in the past, short as it may be. I pity the people that rented the Caravan that my friends and I rented for a trip to Ocean City MD about seven years ago. We were young, foolish, of legal drinking age, and that poor van didn't stand a chance. Besides, you normally don't see Hondas for rent. If you did, I'm sure someone would have the same story to tell of a CR-V.
I'll let the "this engine has been used 2 years before going into the RSX in Japan so it has been proven!" thing go. If two years is enough for you, then so be it. You're entitled to your own opinion just like the rest of us. I have a different opinion of the CR-V and hills as you will now read.
Towing something attached to the hitch, and "hauling" something heavy on the roof and/or in the cargo area (passengers included) can be the same thing when large amounts of weight are involved. It's all about going up and down hills where I live, as there is not a long stretch of flat land within fifty miles of here. Now I don't tow/haul heavy things every day, but my test drive with the CR-V proved to ME that it was going to be very similar to our Civic when it came to our hills, for example, we actually lose speed going up hills in fifth gear on long highway hills in the Civic. I absolutely cannot stand it when that happens, or when you have to redline the tach in second gear to get up a 70 degree incline. My ZX2 ate those same hills for lunch, and I wanted something that was comparable. By the way, my brother-in-laws biggest complaint about his 2001 CR-V SE is the lack of power, and he used to drive an 89 Tempo before it. But that is his opinion.
You can call them what you want, and yes they do share more with cars than traditional trucks, but they are still trucks to me. Most people I know would agree with me. Do you think Subarus are SUV's too?
I never said that Honda didn't surpass Ford in engine reliability. Actually I hinted that they did! Not that a hint was even needed. I don't think this engine has had enough time to be proven, but as I said before, Honda has a good record.
I also agree that Honda's engine reliability stems from their lack of manufacturing capacity, but many others around here will argue with you about that. They keep using the same engines over and over again in different applications, while making several improvements along the way. The US manufacturers seem to make wholesale engine swaps way more often. Usually right after they are just starting to get the old one right.
I'm not going to get into the Civic. I've already gone down that road around here.
I've watched this topic for some time wondering who would 'win'. When I got a Mustang for my daughter the salesman told me to stay away from Escapes (2001) for at least 2 years because there were lots of problems. I had not heard of any at the time, but am aware of them now. The issue of reliability I think is an important one - much MORE than who wins in the 0-60 race. These are SUV's after all!! I know reviewers have cut down Honda for not putting a 6 in the crv, yet for almost all purposes, the 4 works fine. Anyone buying a car/suv/tank should do some research on what there needs/wants are. It would seem to me that scape2 is the one who has to defend his purchase - at least, he has given no real advantage to the Escape that anyone who knew anything about cars wouldn't already know. I doubt that Ford will ever match Honda for workmanship, customer service and reliability. Ford has not managed to do so in all these years.
"all these problems"? please expand on this? I have a late 2001 with almost 10K and not one problem.. visit other Escape chat rooms and you will find thousands upon thousands of satisfied Escape/Trib owners.. Psych 101 is old with me.. I am confident I chose the right vehicle when comparing the CRV. Advantages of an Escape over a CRV: CRV tows 1500, Escape 3500 Escape has more standard payload, more max payload, more max GVWR. Better acceleration, passing, merging with the additional torque and HP available. Back to the topic every Honda CRV owners hates.. the V6 vs the 4cyl.. The Duratec 3.0 reaches its max 201HP at 5900rpms, the 2.4 in the cRv reaches its max 160HP at 6000rpms. The 3.0 reaches its max 200ftlbs of torque at 4,700rpms, the 2.4 reaches its max 161ft/lbs of torque at 3,600rpms. While the CRV is done at 3,600 pushing the vehicle, the Escape has another 1,000rpms and 40ft/lbs of torque to go.. What they don't tell you is you have to push the 2.4 extremly hard in order to come "close" to the V6 Escape numbers. Needs and wants are is an important point. I needed towing ability, I needed the ability to carry 4 adults, and gear up and over hills and not get run off the road, be able to merge with confidence. As much as you want to downplay the V6.. its a huge advantage over the CRV.. live with it..
It might just be me, but don't you want torque to peak fairly low, for low-end pulling power, like getting started from a standstill, but want the HP to peak high, to maintain momentum? I sure wouldn't be happy with torque peaking all the way up at 4700..I'd want it somewhere around the CR-V's 3600 or lower..maybe around 3 grand.
Still, 160 horsies isn't enough, but I don't see Honda putting a screamer from the RSX Type S into the CR-V to get 200 horses...somehow I don't think the CR-V's target market would appreciate how that engine sounds when revved.
"all these problems"? please expand on this? I have a late 2001 with almost 10K and not one problem.. visit other Escape chat rooms and you will find thousands upon thousands of satisfied Escape/Trib owners..
Does anyone really think there are thousands upon thousands of satisfied Escape/Trib owners posting on the web? As for problems - I was just relating what a Ford salesman told me in 2001 - don't buy an Escape for at least 2 years. Something about recalls. I'm glad to hear there are many Escapes/Tributes that have no problems. I'm glad you like your car. Guess we could all come back in 4 years, and have this discussion again.
As for the rest of your post - you've managed to show everyone that the Escape 6 is more powerful than the CR-V 4 - who would have thunk it?
muckyduck- "As for the rest of your post - you've managed to show everyone that the Escape 6 is more powerful than the CR-V 4 - who would have thunk it?"
Get used to it, he's going to bring it up in every post.
Comments
The CR-V did get one more star for the passenger side (front), and maybe it will get a better rating from the IIHS. As long as I don't consistently see 3 stars or less anywhere on the report, I don't see a need to worry about it. Ever since the Windstar started touting the 5 stars all around thing, everyone has been trying to do the same. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you are in some kind of unbreakable safety cocoon either.
varmint,
I haven't checked, but do you happen to know if they use a numbered scoring system when deciding how many stars a vehicle will receive? If they do, how far apart were the Escape and CR-V in the front-passenger test? I'm just curious to see if the CR-V was at the low end of five stars, and/or if the Escape was at the high end of four stars.
I also think we should include security with safety. I know that you can get a security system in the CR-V (EX) (dealer add-on, why do they do that crap?) along with a remote entry system/panic button. I don't really know what all of that consists of, but I do know that the Escape (all models) takes security to the next level by including the securi-lock system (key with a micro chip in it) as standard equipment along with the remote entry/panic button. This ensures that no one will ever be able to start the engine without the proper key, or having to go through 72 quadrillion possible codes. Even if they do happen to get around the engine immobilizer and alarm. There's nothing to prevent it from being towed yet though.
Personally, I don't put too much weight on the differences. They're only numbers to me. I agree that anything above a four star rating is respectable. The differences between one five star vehicle and another are not that significant IMHO.
Security is important, but I think of it as a separate category. FYI, the CR-V also uses a chip.
0-60: RSX 6.5sec Mustang 5.4 - 5.8 (depending on the magazine) ZX2 7.4 - 7.8 (again, depends on the mag but they're all old and gone now anyway).
Yes it's impressive what Honda can do with a four cylinder engine in terms of horsepower, but they always seem to forget about the torque. I brought up the ZX2 because it had closely matched hp and torque at around 130 each. It too was a normally aspirated engine (which is the same as the base engine in the Escape) that outdid itself because it had some torque to go with the horses, and they peaked closer together. If Honda were to somehow do the same, and keep it "Honda smooth" because the Zetec was pretty buzzy, then Mustang owners can start to worry (a Honda V8 would be trouble too). I doubt that will ever happen though.
Don't mess with me when it comes to Mustangs (just ask my wife). These are two completely different animals that happen to compete in the same market.
Anyway, I'll try to stop here, as this forum should be used to discuss something else.
There's a little too much technical info there for me to go through right now. I was hoping for something like a simple points scale. Oh well, thanks for the info.
When did Honda start using chips in the keys? I couldn't find any mention of it, and our cheesy Honda salesman told me "no" when I asked if one was available. Is it part of the security system option?
I understand what you mean about low tourque and high revs in Honda engines BUT that is what they are famous for and enthousiasts love that. To rev an engine so high with a good intake and exaust is exciting and to do this over and over again without having problems is even better! BUT nothing beats the sound of a thunderous V8 roar! My first car was a modified Z28 so Honda has not been the only car I have ever had! I just like them for how they will seem to last forever!
Honda will never try to compete with the Mustang and even though the price is the same, I don't think that Honda really compares it to the Mustang.
Anyways, off topic or what!!? You compared the Duratec (??) to the Honda CRV engine!! There is no comparison here in my opinion for sure!! I don't think hardly anyone buys these with the 4!! I still think for a V6 it is noisy at acceleration.
Insight (twice) (Best Fuel Economy, Best Sub 1 litre awards)
Civic Hybrid (Best 1.0-1.4 litre award)
S2000 (1.8-2.0 litre award)
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/categories.html
Don't see any Fords on this list!
From the article: "Japan's second-largest carmaker said last month a continued supply shortage will likely limit its North American sales to a record 1.49 million vehicles in the fiscal year ending in March, compared with 1.37 million units the previous fiscal year."
http://www.auto.com/industry/honda16_20020516.htm
I wasn't comparing the Zetec four in the Escape to the CR-V four. There is no comparison there because that engine does not belong in the Escape. I'm just trying to show that the horsepower numbers aren't always what they seem to be. You gotta have some torque too (which the CR-V finally does). I guess I'm just not an enthusiast. I can't stand having to rev those little engines until they almost fly off their mounts just to get going at a reasonable pace. The technology interests me though.
I really don't find the V6 to be all that noisy to tell you the truth. But I don't really remember what the new CR-V sounded like to make a comparison either. My main concern was getting up hills with authority. I felt that the CR-V was a big loser in that department.
Baggs - I'll double check on the CR-V keys.
I checked up on the CR-V keys. Yes, they have a chip (copy protection and built-in imobilizer). There are details about a few other features at the bottom of this page.
I too have a little problem comparing the Mustang to the RSX but as you say price wise....The Mustang is still based on 60's technology of the ponycar era (not a bad thing!) and Acura (Honda) goes for the higher tech stuff. Two different approaches and both work.
I have to disagree with you about the V6 however. My experience was that it was quite noisy compared to other V6's but VERY powerful no doubt. For some reason, I ran into some pretty big problems in the 2 days I had it and that really gave me a bad taste in my mouth so sorry I guess but I am still a little paranoid about this car. One of my buds had to have his computer re-programmed for a second time on Monday and that made me feel even more worried about this vehicle. He said that the Ford service department was really good but he has always had Hondas and is not used to going to the garage so often! He bought this vehicle because he needs to tow more than the CRV can handle. This is where Honda loses out...TOWING. I mean, you have the CRV 1500 pounds and then the Pilot (4500 I think) BUT there is no comparison because of price! However, not many people tow so I guess you could look at it both ways. I only tow a snowmobile which is no problem for the CRV.
I'll never understand this arguement that a vehicle with a larger engine and more cylinders is more powerful than a smaller engine with less cylinders. In a word, DUH. I think what Scape 2 is failing to see in all his arguements is that despite having a smaller engine Honda is keeping right even or right on the tail of the larger engine vehicles. If I have something large to tow on a regular basis I'm not buying a CR-V, but I'm not buying an Escape either. I'll buy a vehicle with enough power to not notice the trailer behind it on hills.
Furthermore, here's some secret hidden info for you on the CR-V: Honda is looking at recalling about 2 million of them due to an ignition switch problem. I guess we can expect the CR-V to plummet in sales and consumer confidence since that's now public......
As for the recall, I've only read that report from one individual. Have you seen it anywhere else? I'd wait for confirmation. It may simply end up another TSB.
Just wanted to say that you are right about the little 4 keeping up quite well to the big 6. I don't agree with what you mentioned about the recall. Even if that were to be true than it would not have an impact on sales as those parts are manufactured for Honda but not by them. I am curious to find out where you got this info from.
The first CRV had a major recall with a wire problem during its second year and that did not hurt sales at all. A good example of this is the Grand Cherakee and its numerous huge recalls and it still sells well no matter how terrible it is for the price!
The Escape had some pretty major recalls as well and it was the number one seller in April.......so I don't think that they really hurt sales as long as companies are fixing problems as they arise, than consumers are happy.
I had never heard of the problem until I was pointed to a web page regarding the issue. According to the web site, this is an epidemic. Seems odd that I would never have of it before, but stranger things have happened. We have to remember that the Internet community realy is a small sample of the total consumer population.
It appears that Honda dealers have been treating it as a regular service issue. After 100,000 miles, you expect a few things to wear out. I guess no one thought much of it. It'll be interesting to see what the final outcome is.
It usually takes a large number of them before the public takes notice. Even if the press starts writing about them, some folks don't get the word. So recalls are not the kiss of death.
hondaman,
The Escape recalls were not "major" in numbers. A couple of them were for what could be considered "major" components though. Here they are in some detail if you have never seen the numbers before.
http://www.auto.com/autonews/escape28_20001128.htm
What's the problem with the ignition anyway? If the word fire is involved, you bet your butt they'll be recalled.
The Escape/Tribute allso has a lingering problem that may be recalled and that is one of engine hesitation cause by the computer going off-line. This may also end up in a recall soon.
I just can't see a "perfect" car so these things are bound to happen to the best of them. If only you knew half the problems an airplane goes through everyday, you wouldn't fly!
Varmint, I've only seen this posted in 3 places and admittedly I don't have more info. One of the places we both share in common it was reported by Bing, and he seems to check his facts before posting such things. I also saw a website but couldn't for the life of me tell you where I saw it anymore....
Sorry for the confusion gang....
Baggs - The problem results in toasted (carbonized) connections. No fire. Symptoms include inability to start and the possibility of stalling while in motion.
I am finding links, and am going to post them very soon, many raving reviews about the Escape/Tribute, along with its road manners and the advantages of the V6.. Just trying to pick the right ones to show you... The Escape is SUPERIOR!...
Why is it ok for Honda to have a recall but not Ford? there is a huge double standard in this room.. Ford recalled vehicles because of an ignition switch and it was plastered all over the paper and news.. Why the He... haven't we heard of this? Why aren't Honda owners being notified?
My manager friend let the cat out of the bag.. 77% of last months CRV sales at his dealership were to "previous Honda owners"... oops..
So...previous Honda owners went back to buy CR-V's? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4021102.asp?Pos=Edit1&src=Home
I figure I'd help Scape with his links.
By the way scape, I have to clarify that the only reason why people on this board don't disown me for the discussion of the 4 versus the 6 is because I have NEVER said that it was not more powerful!!! I thought it was but after 3 engine problems leading to one towing, I don't think it is reliable that's all. HOWEVER, I was reading an old MotorTrend magazine and they posted CRV at 8.9 and the Escape at 9 sec.!!!!! I am confused but I am sure you will have an explanation for me.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Diploid - Edmunds has a similar owner-survey type of thing.
Scape2 - I think you've let at least 7 or 8 posts go by without telling us the hp and torque ratings are for the Escape. You feeling okay?
greetings from the florida keys
Ford does need to put a larger four cyl under the Escape hood and no one is really arguing with that.
The 4cyl is nowhere near "close" to the V6 in the Escape.. We have gone over this time and time again.. The only way the CRv comes even "close" is with a 5spd transmission.. As far as towing, nope, hauling, nope, being able to hold speeds up steep inclines with heavy loads, nope.. a 201HP/200ft/lb of torque V6 compared to a 160HP/161ft/lb of torque 4cyl... close? Nope.. Look at the HP/torque curves also.. close.. nope... The V6 is superior to the 4cyl in the CRV no question about it.. There are those whom just keep justifying thier purchase and keep trying to convince themselves the 4cyl in the CRv is more powerful then the V6 in the Escape..
I fully agree the Zetec 2.0 in the Escape is a joke.. But... Sales numbers show over 80 percent of Escapes sold are with the V6..
Varmint: Well you jinxed it by bringing up his lack of mentioning HP/Torque....
"The only way the CRv comes even "close" is with a 5spd transmission.."
Well I guess it depends on how you define close. The AT CR-V's average 0-60 time is slower than the Escape's average. No doubt about that. However, the only head to head comparo we've seen actually found the CR-V to have a lower time. So, on a good day, the CR-V is certainly competitive.
The average times for the MT CR-V are consistently in the mid 8 second range. This is about the same as the Escape's overall average.
Another thing I've noted recently, is that the Escape seems to be getting slower. All the reviews I've found have the 2002 Escape running 0-60 in the low 9 second range. The earlier models seem to average much lower times. I know that Ford changed the tires on the Escape a while back. Have the 2002 changes brought anything else which might be slowing them down?
"As far as towing, nope, hauling, nope.."
I can certainly agree to towing. I'm not sure waht he means by "hauling". If he's talking about interior capacity, there is room for debate.
"being able to hold speeds up steep inclines with heavy loads, nope..."
This I have yet to see proven.
"a 201HP/200ft/lb of torque V6 compared to a 160HP/161ft/lb of torque 4cyl... close? Nope.."
No one ever said that the peak ouputs were close. It's how well the car makes use of that power that is the difference.
"Look at the HP/torque curves also.. close.. nope..."
Show me a torque curve for the V6 Escape. I'm asking for proof of this claim. I have several for the CR-V (which have been posted before) and all of them show a wide, flat torque curve. 90% of peak torque is available from 2250 - 5500 rpms. I have doubts that the one-size-fits-all valve timing and lift design in the Escape can make such a claim.
"The V6 is superior to the 4cyl in the CRV no question about it.."
We've been over this so many times, it's not funny. Please define "superior". Because it seems to me that the CR-V's 2.4 is easily superior in the areas of fuel economy, NVH, and emissions. About the only thing that the Escape does significantly better is towing.
Baggs - Agreed. The CR-V's 2.4 is a new design and we cannot assume that it will be as reliable as the last model's 2.0. That said, the writing on the wall certainly looks better.
Lastly, I think that a 4 cyl staying about a 1/2 to 3/4 a second behind a V6 with a 40hp advantage is pretty good in my books no matter who makes it. I still can't figure out how MotorTrend with an auto CRV got 8.9 sec. to Fords 9.0 sec.!!!???
There is NO such thing as a perfect engine. For arguments sake, that would be the Maxima's V6 cause it is great!
I don't think using a rental as your example is a fair way to judge quality. Who knows what may have been done to that vehicle in the past, short as it may be. I pity the people that rented the Caravan that my friends and I rented for a trip to Ocean City MD about seven years ago. We were young, foolish, of legal drinking age, and that poor van didn't stand a chance. Besides, you normally don't see Hondas for rent. If you did, I'm sure someone would have the same story to tell of a CR-V.
I'll let the "this engine has been used 2 years before going into the RSX in Japan so it has been proven!" thing go. If two years is enough for you, then so be it. You're entitled to your own opinion just like the rest of us. I have a different opinion of the CR-V and hills as you will now read.
Towing something attached to the hitch, and "hauling" something heavy on the roof and/or in the cargo area (passengers included) can be the same thing when large amounts of weight are involved. It's all about going up and down hills where I live, as there is not a long stretch of flat land within fifty miles of here. Now I don't tow/haul heavy things every day, but my test drive with the CR-V proved to ME that it was going to be very similar to our Civic when it came to our hills, for example, we actually lose speed going up hills in fifth gear on long highway hills in the Civic. I absolutely cannot stand it when that happens, or when you have to redline the tach in second gear to get up a 70 degree incline. My ZX2 ate those same hills for lunch, and I wanted something that was comparable. By the way, my brother-in-laws biggest complaint about his 2001 CR-V SE is the lack of power, and he used to drive an 89 Tempo before it. But that is his opinion.
You can call them what you want, and yes they do share more with cars than traditional trucks, but they are still trucks to me. Most people I know would agree with me. Do you think Subarus are SUV's too?
I never said that Honda didn't surpass Ford in engine reliability. Actually I hinted that they did! Not that a hint was even needed. I don't think this engine has had enough time to be proven, but as I said before, Honda has a good record.
I also agree that Honda's engine reliability stems from their lack of manufacturing capacity, but many others around here will argue with you about that. They keep using the same engines over and over again in different applications, while making several improvements along the way. The US manufacturers seem to make wholesale engine swaps way more often. Usually right after they are just starting to get the old one right.
I'm not going to get into the Civic. I've already gone down that road around here.
LOL. You know, that's actually not very hard to do.
I know reviewers have cut down Honda for not putting a 6 in the crv, yet for almost all purposes, the 4 works fine. Anyone buying a car/suv/tank should do some research on what there needs/wants are.
It would seem to me that scape2 is the one who has to defend his purchase - at least, he has given no real advantage to the Escape that anyone who knew anything about cars wouldn't already know. I doubt that Ford will ever match Honda for workmanship, customer service and reliability.
Ford has not managed to do so in all these years.
Advantages of an Escape over a CRV:
CRV tows 1500, Escape 3500
Escape has more standard payload, more max payload, more max GVWR.
Better acceleration, passing, merging with the additional torque and HP available.
Back to the topic every Honda CRV owners hates..
the V6 vs the 4cyl..
The Duratec 3.0 reaches its max 201HP at 5900rpms,
the 2.4 in the cRv reaches its max 160HP at 6000rpms. The 3.0 reaches its max 200ftlbs of torque at 4,700rpms, the 2.4 reaches its max 161ft/lbs of torque at 3,600rpms. While the CRV is done at 3,600 pushing the vehicle, the Escape has another 1,000rpms and 40ft/lbs of torque to go.. What they don't tell you is you have to push the 2.4 extremly hard in order to come "close" to the V6 Escape numbers.
Needs and wants are is an important point. I needed towing ability, I needed the ability to carry 4 adults, and gear up and over hills and not get run off the road, be able to merge with confidence. As much as you want to downplay the V6.. its a huge advantage over the CRV.. live with it..
Still, 160 horsies isn't enough, but I don't see Honda putting a screamer from the RSX Type S into the CR-V to get 200 horses...somehow I don't think the CR-V's target market would appreciate how that engine sounds when revved.
Does anyone really think there are thousands upon thousands of satisfied Escape/Trib owners posting on the web?
As for problems - I was just relating what a Ford salesman told me in 2001 - don't buy an Escape for at least 2 years. Something about recalls.
I'm glad to hear there are many Escapes/Tributes that have no problems. I'm glad you like your car.
Guess we could all come back in 4 years, and have this discussion again.
As for the rest of your post - you've managed to show everyone that the Escape 6 is more powerful than the CR-V 4 - who would have thunk it?
Get used to it, he's going to bring it up in every post.