CR-V vs Escape

drive62 · November 2005

There are no recalls for a CRV.

I think the company will take exception at someone constantly badmouthing them.

http://www.crv.com/

varmint · November 2005

It's about time Ford got a decent V6 in their line-up. That does look like a nice design.

Having said that... If they manage to get it into 20% of their cars by 2010, they'll be where Toyota, Nissan, and Honda were a few years ago. But I suppose they beat GM to the punch. That's gotta be worth something to somebody.

Back to the Escape...

As I understand it, the upcoming Edge is supposed to be a replacement for the Freestyle. The Freestyle is a nice vehicle, but it's not selling well. Why not? Because it's a quality vehicle. Ford needs to charge a higher price to cover the costs of building it. They can't use huge incentives to convince people to buy it.

Baggs is right. The Edge is not a replacement for the Escape. It's more like competition for the Highlander and Murano. It looks like Mazda is doing their own thing and has no interest in reviving the Tribute. And I've heard no word about Ford developing a replacement without Mazda.

So, I expect the Escape will soldier on for a few more years. It will get a few tweaks, be sold with huge incentives, and become the darling of the rental car world. In short, it will become the next Taurus in Ford's line-up.

baggs32 · November 2005

If they manage to get it into 20% of their cars by 2010, they'll be where Toyota, Nissan, and Honda were a few years ago.

Toyota? Their V6 was weaker than Ford's until they introduced the 3.3L currently being used in a few models. Ford will be on track with them but still lag behind Nissan and Honda regarding engines.

As I understand it, the upcoming Edge is supposed to be a replacement for the Freestyle. The Freestyle is a nice vehicle, but it's not selling well. Why not? Because it's a quality vehicle.

That's what I've heard too. However the Freestyle will be renamed and wear a Mercury badge only when the Edge debuts. So it'll still be around only it will cost a little more and probably have better NVH levels as well as interior materials. It might look better with a Mercury grille too.

And I've heard no word about Ford developing a replacement without Mazda.

I believe development for the Escape the rest of the world gets has moved to Taiwan or somewhere else over there. That hints that the Escape, or Maverick if you will, will carry on overseas but not here.

explorerx4 · November 2005

varm... being a ford guy, i just want to point out some history.
contour svt 2.5 duratec - 200 hp. it was a v6. how long since they made those?
back it off a bit, make it a bit larger for more torque, 3.0 duratec.
1996 sho 2 cylinders added to the 2.5 for 3.4 liters, 235 hp.
ford does know how to make good engines, sometimes the engineers get overruled by the bean counters to maximize profits.

the escape has a good basic design. it is passing the test of time. i look at it this way, if it came out as an '06, would it look out of date? i say no.

baggs32 · November 2005

contour svt 2.5 duratec - 200 hp. it was a v6. how long since they made those?

I believe 1998 was the first year for the SVT.

My dad's '96 Sable has a 200 HP Duratec30 in it as well courtesy of a true dual exhaust system. You'll notice that most 200HP Duratec30s now only have one exhaust outlet. What were Honda and Toyota's V6' making back then?

Ever since Jaques the ripper screwed things up Ford has been losing money. The Duratec35 is a big deal for them because they haven't been able to put something competitive on the market due to said cash flow problems. Sure other makes have passed them in recent years but at least they're trying to fight back. They seem to have made the 35 with consideration for the future as it can handle direct fuel injection, turbocharging, and probably a displacement bump. Folks on a Mustang site are salivating to get it in a Mustang so they can add nitrous. Apparently, keep in mind I'm no nitrous expert, the 35 can handle a good dose of that too.

blueiedgod · November 2005

an escape is not a stump puller. a silverado is a much heavier vehicle with a much more powerful engine, but everyone already knows that. not sure of the point you are trying to make.

Then why does certain someone keeps harping on and, on, and on about the 40 ft. lbs advantage if it can't be used in real life?

blueiedgod · November 2005

varm... being a ford guy, i just want to point out some history.
contour svt 2.5 duratec - 200 hp. it was a v6. how long since they made those?
back it off a bit, make it a bit larger for more torque, 3.0 duratec.
1996 sho 2 cylinders added to the 2.5 for 3.4 liters, 235 hp.
ford does know how to make good engines, sometimes the engineers get overruled by the bean counters to maximize profits.

the escape has a good basic design. it is passing the test of time. i look at it this way, if it came out as an '06, would it look out of date? i say no.

If you want to venture off the topic of Escape and CR-V. Honda made the F20 (S2000 engine) that produces 240 hp out of 2 liter, 4 cylinder engine. Then bored it out to 2.2 liter to boost torque.

Honda broke the 100 hp per liter way back in the early 90's.

I think, implying that Ford knows engine development is like saying Big mac diet is good for you.

Besides, wasn't SVT engine developed by Coswoth, a division of Ford racing, not really a Dearborn design.

blueiedgod · November 2005

Scape,
The Edge is coming out next year, along with the Aviator and Mazda CX-7, and will be a tad larger than the Escape but a tad smaller than the Explorer. It too is a crossover but, unlike the Escape, is based on a much more solid platform (Mazda6) and will compete with the likes of the Pilot, Highlander, Murano, etc. The Lincoln version (Aviator) will compete with the R330, MDX, etc. A smaller SUV is supposed to bow sometime in '08 or '09 that will be smaller than the Escape and that may be when the Escape fades off into the sunset. All of the new crossovers mentioned above will get the Duratec35 in some form. Probably standard on the Lincoln but the other two might have a turbo Duratec23 as the standard mill.

These are just rumors now so time will tell.

Problem with Ford and other domestics, they don't want the bad publicity of the previous model follow the new model, so they change names.

Where is the Pinto? Where is the Escort? Where is Celebrity? Where is Cavalier?

Honda still has Civic and Accord and Toyota still has Corolla and Camry, after 30-some years.

If Ford products were so good, they would not change names every 4-5 years. If the Edge is the successor for the Escape, why not call it ummm, ESCAPE? If Focus is the successor for Escort, why not call it ESCORT? Because Ford thinks its buyers are brainless drones, and would not realize that the new car is the same old car with the same problems. Instead of changing names, they should spend more time in the R&D designing quality products, so they would not have to change names so often. But that would be too obvious, or not so obvious to some.

thegraduate · November 2005

Edge is coming out next year, along with the Aviator and Mazda CX-7, and will be a tad larger than the Escape but a tad smaller than the Explorer. It too is a crossover but, unlike the Escape, is based on a much more solid platform (Mazda6) and will compete with the likes of the Pilot, Highlander, Murano, etc.

How will the Edge be able to compete with the Pilot? It is larger in every interior dimension than the Explorer (exception of Explorer front legroom edging out Pilot by an inch), and the Edge is going to be smaller? Should prove to be an interesting thing to see. Seems like it might compete better with the Chevrolet Equinox/Pontiac Torrent. They are just slightly smaller than their Trailblazer sibling, and are crossovers. I havent seen an Edge concept or anything, I'm just wondering how a smaller vehicle expects to be more competitve than the larger one, which still happens to be smaller. Thanks for any info on the Edge, and I apologize for maintaining this sidetracked discussion.

thegrad

baggs32 · November 2005

How will the Edge be able to compete with the Pilot?

Simply put, both are crossovers whereas the Explorer isn't. I'm not sure whether the Edge/CX-7/Aviator will have a third row or not so that might keep it from competing well with the Pilot.

I was just making a general assumption in saying it would compete with the Pilot due to the nature of the two. The Pilot is after all an Accord at heart whereas the Edge will be a Mazda6/Fusion at heart.

baggs32 · November 2005

Besides, wasn't SVT engine developed by Coswoth, a division of Ford racing, not really a Dearborn design.

If you want to get technical, the Duratec30 block was actually designed by Porsche and Cosworth and the Taurus SHO motor mentioned previously was designed and built by Yamaha.

explorerx4 · November 2005

i figure duratec is on topic. it is smart for a business to draw upon expertise outside of their core competence when they are heading in a new direction. if you have racing engine designers available to you, use them!
hondas first suv was a... um... er... isuzu.
i think it was a good idea. got people used to a honda suv. then they designed their own. honda pickups... oops.

the escape is a good practical design and that does not go out of style every couple of years.

varmint · November 2005

As has already been pointed out, the engines you've mentioned were out-sourced for development. And they were engines for low-volume specialty cars.

The V6 in the Honda Accord is not strictly for the super high output model. It's the ordinary, garden-variety V6. Period. Same with the Altima. Ford's everyday V6s (until now) have been lacking.

To bring this back on topic, the simple fact that Ford (and others) needed to use a V6 to match Honda's I4-powered CR-V is somewhat telling.

blueiedgod · November 2005

To bring this back on topic, the simple fact that Ford (and others) needed to use a V6 to match Honda's I4-powered CR-V is somewhat telling.

Yeap, I think this sums it all up. Just the fact that we re comparing the V6 power Escape to I4 powered CR-V says something about the CR-V.

baggs32 · November 2005

To bring this back on topic, the simple fact that Ford (and others) needed to use a V6 to match Honda's I4-powered CR-V is somewhat telling.

I have to disagree. Ford, and others, didn't use a V6 to match Honda's I4 power. They used the V6, and I'll add rebates too for your sake varm

, to gain points with buyers so they could steal sales from Honda. It worked.

The Escape's V6 is more than adequate for the application, it was readily available, and it was cost effective during hard times. Do you think Ford, or the other domestics, gave one crap about spending boat loads of money developing an I4 to compete with Honda? Keep dreaming if you did.

drive62 · November 2005

Based on corporate sales, profits and the stock price of FoMoCo (and other domestics) they should have.

bobw3 · November 2005

Price was one of the reasons I bought the Freestyle. I only paid $24K, but if the price was $30K I might have looked elsewhere. I think once Mercury gets it then the price won't be competitive.

varmint · November 2005

"The Escape's V6 is more than adequate for the application, it was readily available, and it was cost effective during hard times. Do you think Ford, or the other domestics, gave one crap about spending boat loads of money developing an I4 to compete with Honda? Keep dreaming if you did."

Yes, the V6 was a cheap and easy solution. And I'd say that it worked. But cheap and easy does not always make the best long-term solution. Just look at how much Ford has used incentives to prop up sales of the Duratec cars. And since we're talking about how well the cars were engineered, cheap and easy just doesn't sound very sexy, now does it?

I mean, there's will be a new CR-V in 2007. We probably won't see a new Escape. He who laughs longest...

I give props to Ford/Mazda for developing the 2.3L used in several cars. It's a good engine for small cars. But it just doesn't have what it takes to motivate the Escape/Tribute. Their 4 cyl option has always been a lackluster afterthought.

varmint · November 2005

Yes, the Freestyle represents a great value for a nice vehicle. It's the kind of vehicle Ford should have been building to compete with the imports all along. But, alas, Ford's reputation is so diminished they cannot convince buyers to pay what the vehicle is worth.

Once it becomes a Merc, they will add content to help justify the price. But that strategy hasn't worked, yet. I see no reason to expect it will again. Like the Mariner, they're just getting rid of excess capacity.

explorerx4 · November 2005

long term solution? the escape is still basically the same vehicle since it was introduced. it still works, for what it is, an entry level suv. after several years of changes, maybe the crv can outperform the escape 0-60, or whatever.
the escape v6 is not a cheap solution. it is one that works and continues to work for the buyers. it took years for honda to catch up. the I-4 maxed out, so they had to put in a 5 speed transmission. good, they keep trying.
the escape and the mariner are still selling well, and don't forget about the maverick.

dromedarius · November 2005

Someone familiar with Honda products wouldn't say the I-4 is "maxed out". Unlike Lincoln, Acura trickles technology down to Honda quite effectively. I'd advise people who think otherwise to research what the 2.4 is doing in Acura products, and what the industry insiders are saying it will do in the CR-V in 2007.

PS - As always, I think it is important to actually research what one says before commenting.

PPS - Five speed automatics aren't all that uncommon. In fact, Ford is heavily marketing its new six speed, as I type this.

:surprise:

explorerx4 · November 2005

acura engines start out as honda engines not the other way around.

dromedarius · November 2005

I'm not sure what the point of the previous post is. The Acura version ALWAYS has more power than the Honda version. Eventually, as Acura upgrades, more power trickles down to Honda. That's why Acura is considered Honda's luxury brand. I didn't think this was so hard to understand.

J/K

:P

explorerx4 · November 2005

i try to post clearly, but not everyone gets it.
try this: the frosting is acura, but the cake is honda.

dromedarius · November 2005

I guess I didn't realize that...

OK, seriously, the comment was that the I-4 was "maxed out" and requires a 5 speed automatic to be competitive. However, if one were to check the Acura line, one would find that the 2.4 puts out 200 hp. Hmmmm....the logical conclusion, therefore, would be the I-4 is NOT "maxed out".

Furthermore, Ford offers a six-speed automatic with the 3.0 Duratec in its Ford Fusion. If the reasoning that offering more gears is an indication that an engine has been "maxed out", then the 3.0 Duratec is in fact, "maxed out". That's the wrong conclusion, though. That's my point. The original statement was wrong, and the reasoning was even "wronger". I don't know any other way to say it.

explorerx4 · November 2005

different vehicles have different requirements. a 2.4 needs a 5 speed to compete with a 3.0 in an suv. in a sedan, the 6 speed allows the 3.0 to get closer to the performance of 3.5's. same thing.

dromedarius · November 2005

It isn't. The Fusion competes against other 3 liter 5 speed automatics (Accord, Camry, etc.). And the primary reason the 5 speed was put in the CR-V was better fuel economy, not acceleration. The Element still has a 4 speed with the 2.4. In pretty much every case I know of, the reason to switch from a three speed automatic to a four, and a four speed automatic to a five is fuel econonmy.

Lastly, the 2.4 puts out an addition 50 horsepower in the Acura application, so the statement the I-4 was "maxed out" was drastically wrong. There comes a time when it is okay to admit one was wrong...

explorerx4 · November 2005

fusion(3.0) is competing with altima(3.5) sonata(3.3) camry(3.3) along with accord (3.0). i was a bit off on the sedans.
what i meant about the 2.4 being maxed out is in an suv, not a much lighter coupe. heavier vehicles need more torque. the 5 speed allows the cr-v to get into the power band more often.

dromedarius · November 2005

That's still not right. The TSX with the 2.4 weighs 3345 pounds, the two-wheel drive CR-V actually weighs less at 3318 pounds, and the four-wheel drive CR-V only weighs 3400+ pounds total. It's the whole reason the next generation CR-V, although bigger, will still have the 2.4. It's not maxed out by a longshot.

PS - The best selling V6 Camry is the 3.0.

scape2 · November 2005

Here we go again. Trying and trying to make the I4 CRV be as powerful as the V6 in the Escape. Keep on dreaming. When anyone enters these vehicles they will feel the difference, its there. Plus, anyone who knows and usese the torque will feel the differnce. To say Ford had to use a V6 to compete with the I4 in the CRV just makes me laugh at how ignorant a statement this is. FAct is the Escape can tow more than the CRV. FAct is the Escape does this with more confidence, fact is the Escape can move its weight around with more confidence. The cRv has been downgraded to 156HP now, are you going to tell me its all int the gearing? right.... The Ford/Mazda 2.3 does just fine in moving the Escape/Tribute right along. In fact the CRV weighs MORE than the Escape/Tribute.. Next your going to tell me its all in the gearing right? Please.... :shades:

scape2 · November 2005

Duratec in the Fusion makes 220HP, the 3.0 in the Honda Accord makes 240HP.. Yet in a Motor Trend shootout the Fusion was only .6 seconds behind in 0-60 AND the Accords cost was over $4000 more than the Fusion!! Resale value?? Ha!! Ha!! :shades:

scape2 · November 2005

I watched a Motorweek the other day and they were at the Taiwan motor show. There the debut of the Ford Equator showed up. Slightly larger than the present Escape they said this very well could be the replacement for the present Escape. They said a new V6, more transmission choices, safety features were going to be standard! Didn't look too bad either. They gave a time frame of about 2008 for production. Get out on the net there are pics..

baggs32 · November 2005

I think once Mercury gets it then the price won't be competitive.

Typically a Mercury is only $500-$1000 more expensive than the comparable Ford model. For that money you get higher quality interiors and more standard features, usually safety related. Making it look fresher should be their main focus right now if you ask me.

baggs32 · November 2005

I give props to Ford/Mazda for developing the 2.3L used in several cars. It's a good engine for small cars. But it just doesn't have what it takes to motivate the Escape/Tribute. Their 4 cyl option has always been a lackluster afterthought.

It would if they'd use Mazda's version from the 6 and 3 and Fusion/Milan as well as the 5-speed ATX from the Fusion/Milan.

But cheap and easy does not always make the best long-term solution. Just look at how much Ford has used incentives to prop up sales of the Duratec cars. And since we're talking about how well the cars were engineered, cheap and easy just doesn't sound very sexy, now does it?

Sexy? Depends on how many beers you've had.

No it's not a good long term solution but deperate times call for desperate measures. I would like to think that Ford realized it's cheaper and a much better long term solution to come up with an all new vehicle, named Escape or not, than to deal with the old/current one. I'd rather see a more viable option in the future than another warmed over, decade old platform tweak. They finally got it with the Mustang, Explorer, and Fusion. Let's see what the future of the entry crossover slot holds at FMC.

sky23213 · November 2005

Fusion vs. Accord?Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha! Ha!
Resale value! Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha! Ha!Ha! Ha! Ha!
And I thought this thread was funny before... Maaaan, you open the wrong door, resale value

varmint · November 2005

"Sexy? Depends on how many beers you've had."

Okay, you've got me, there.

"No it's not a good long term solution but deperate times call for desperate measures. I would like to think that Ford realized it's cheaper and a much better long term solution to come up with an all new vehicle, named Escape or not, than to deal with the old/current one."

Well, changing the name presents a marketing problem. If Ford does change the name to Equator, then two factors come into play.

1. Ford will have to pay $ to market this new name. The NA buyer will need to get acquainted with this new vehicle.
2. Changing it suggests the name "Escape" is damaged goods.

varmint · November 2005

"The cRv has been downgraded to 156HP now, are you going to tell me its all int the gearing?"

Whattzamatta? Now you're upset about getting bested by a 156 hp CR-V instead of a 160hp version?

By the way, wasn't all this discussed during "The Great Cover-Up of 2004" when the Escape's hp and torque dropped several digits?

"right.... The Ford/Mazda 2.3 does just fine in moving the Escape/Tribute right along."

We're talking 12+ seconds from 0-60, Scape. If that's your idea of "just fine", the CR-Vs I4 must be blazingly fast.

thegraduate · November 2005

For comparison purposes, the engine has not changed at all from 2005 to 2006, Honda just chose to go ahead and start following the new SAE testing standards with all of their engines. Toyota also followed suit by doing so; all automakers aren't required to retest their engines, and neither are Honda or Toyota, they just went ahead and rescaled the horsepower. Also, no longer will hp be rounded to the nearest 5, it will be exact, as in the new Accord's 166, the CR-V 156, and Odyssey 244.

The number actually has nothing to do with how the cars compare, it is how usable the horsepower they have is. I've never driven an Escape, have driven a CR-V, and can say that while its not a hot-rod, I don't know a mini-SUV that is. I would be willing to believe that the Escape has an overall advantage with a V-6, but the CR-V makes a more efficient use of its engine, and wins the compromise of fuel-efficiency/power/and interior room.

Hope this clears things up (on the testing procedures) for anyone wondering why the numbers changed!

baggs32 · November 2005

I've not heard that the name will be changed. Since the Equator showed up in Taiwan and Mazda has moved all future Tribute resourses to the far east I'm guessing the Equator is bound for those shores and not ours.

However we do know that the new, slightly larger crossover will the the Edge while the smaller one is still a mystery. Maybe we'll see the Equator name there but as you said, it makes more sense to use Escape.

suvtime · November 2005

Scape people have gone over the reason for the HP drop in the CR-V with you at least 6 times. But for some reason you keep bringing it up like its something new. You know it's the new SAE testing method, so drop it and move on.

It would seem like you are always of the opinion that more torque and HP always mean better. Why then doesn't Ford put in a V8 or even a V10 in the Escape? It would have to be better wouldn't it?

As far as the Escape moving around with more confidence than a CR-V that's very subjective. I think people would have more confidence driving around in an Escape if it had VSC like the CR-V. Lets face it if someone doesn't tow most people find the I4 in the CR-V fine.

varmint · November 2005

You could be right. It's just the name of the concept, after all. But, OTOH, the V6 they are touting has North America written all over it.

explorerx4 · November 2005

what i mean is that in the current form the cr-v 2.4 is maxed out. if they add some more frosting(acura) it can make more power.
an suv usually has different engine tuning than a sports car. maybe honda decided to try the 5 speed with the current engine to get some experience, before they hook up something more powerful to it.

drive62 · November 2005

"it took years for honda to catch up."

Huh? The CR-V came out several years before the Escape. The 2nd generation CR-V came out after the Escape debuted. How exactly is Honda playing catch up?

explorerx4 · November 2005

ok, i'm wrong. honda still hasn't caught up, yet.

look at it this way, what changes to they make to the civic, since last introduced? they didn't have to because it sold well the way it was. the cr-v has had several upgrades(powertrain and features). this was to try to reach the escape 'line in the sand'.

dromedarius · November 2005

That's it. The original Escape is so good, it doesn't need upgrades, like standard side and curtain airbags, stability control, or better fuel economy. Got it...

Actually, I'm being sarcastic. I think it's asinine to contend nothing has happened in the automotive world in the past five or six years which would necessitate upgrades. Safety is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to have side airbags, and I can't understand why a manufacturer wouldn't make them standard.

I also know the current CR-V is rated as an ULEV, meaning it's better for our environment. In fact, it takes 10 current model CR-Vs to make as much pollution as one of the old model CR-Vs, which, incidentally, was cleaner than the Escape.

Furthermore, the current CR-V has more power AND better fuel economy than the older generation. With Ford, you have to pick one or the other. Better fuel economy means Ford owners can suck up more of our earth's resources, thereby taking them from the hands of our children and their children.

Dang, safety, the environment, preserving resources (and relying less on foreign oil), Honda hasn't made ANY advances. Too bad they can't be more like Ford. Wait a minute, there I go being sarcastic again.

:confuse:

baggs32 · November 2005

Dang, safety, the environment, preserving resources (and relying less on foreign oil),

And here I thought Honda was just out to make a profit like all other corporations. Thanks for the enlightenment! :P

blueiedgod · November 2005

Replying to: varmint (Nov 14, 2005 6:23 pm)

long term solution? the escape is still basically the same vehicle since it was introduced. it still works, for what it is, an entry level suv. after several years of changes, maybe the crv can outperform the escape 0-60, or whatever.
the escape v6 is not a cheap solution. it is one that works and continues to work for the buyers. it took years for honda to catch up. the I-4 maxed out, so they had to put in a 5 speed transmission. good, they keep trying.
the escape and the mariner are still selling well, and don't forget about the maverick.

I would like to get what you are smoking, it obviously alters your reality.
K24 maxed out??? Let's see, K24 in the CR-V is the lowest efficiency engine in the K-series. Acura TSX has the same engine with 200 hp, and who knows, if Honda squeeses 200 hp out of 2.0 liter and 240 hp out of 2.2 liter, maybe the 2.4 liter in the CR-V is not so maxed out??

The Duratec V6 is the band aid that Ford uses to get by. None of the car with Duratec V6 approach 30 mpg economy (Not even small Contour) that Honda is getting with K24, K20, and the 3.5 Liter V6. Any company that thinks that people will be willing to continue dumping their hard earned money into filling up their cars, is SHORT SIGHTED!!!

5 speed transmission in the Cr-V was just the icing on the cake. It gave Auto CR-V same fuel economy as the manual, and is a much better approach to incentives than REBATES. Because it does not hurt the current owners' resale values.

I think you got it backwards as far who catching up to who. Honda had the CR-V in 1996 in Japan, 1997 in the US, it took Ford 5 years to bring out the 2001 Escape. So, who is catching up to who? If Ford is so great at developing vehicles, why didn't they have Escape in 1995?

Me driving the same way, I get 30 mpg in the CR-V, 19 in the Escape. So, what is the big hype about the Escape? It is slower, and uses more gas, sounsd like a winner, NOT

varmint · November 2005

"Duratec in the Fusion makes 220HP, the 3.0 in the Honda Accord makes 240HP.. Yet in a Motor Trend shootout the Fusion was only .6 seconds behind in 0-60..."

How did I miss this? Please, dear Scape2, allow me a rebuttal...

Here we go again. Trying and trying to make the [Duratec Fusion] be as powerful as the [VTEC V6] in the [Accord]. Keep on dreaming. When anyone enters these vehicles they will feel the difference, its there. Plus, anyone who knows and usese the torque will feel the differnce. To say [Honda] had to use a [VTEC V6] to compete with the [Duratec] in the [Fusion] just makes me laugh at how ignorant a statement this is. FAct is the [Accord] rides with more confidence, fact is the [Accord] can move its weight around with more confidence.

And don't get me started on the 33 hp difference...

varmint · November 2005

"...fact is the Escape can move its weight around with more confidence."

When you originally posted that little gem, I wanted to ask if your source for that information is the guy who run the NHTSA rollover tests. You know, the test where the Escape instills tremendous confidence by tipping up on two wheels trying to make a J-turn. Did you ask them?

varmint · November 2005

"I would like to get what you are smoking, it obviously alters your reality. K24 maxed out???"

I think what he means is that the K24 is maxxed out so long as no changes are made to the design or hardware. If Honda were to make improvements to the engine (like when Ford improved the Escape's engine by decreasing its output), that wouldn't count.

Ya know, technically, he's right.

CR-V vs Escape

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles