Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
It really does not matter, but I suspect that they incorrectly posted the 0-60 time for the 4 cylinder instead of the V6. It happens all of the time with these auto rags.
I would bet that there was a correction posted in a later edition...
I can't find the article with the 10.2, but I distinctly remember they liked it because of its "friendly" handling; it was compared with the Vue and Santa Fe, and possibly one more. If someone can find the article I'd appreciate it.
They just have better things to do than come here and talk about it..
regards,
kyfdx
two-time CR-V owner... getting in touch with my feminine side
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yeah, this is news to anyone? Any of the crossovers are targeting the female, soccer-mom market. Otherwise, they wouldn't have sold them replacing the everyday minivan soccer-moms used to think were cool.
You don't have to tell me that. My wife still longs to have our Escape back because it was "just the right size". I happen to love our '06 Explorer because to me it's an exceptional SUV. It's not great in any way, well maybe it's really quiet interior, but it it does everything very well. I'd take it over any of these cute utes any day of the year.
As for the size of the Escape, it was not the right size for a 2-year old and a newborn which is why it's gone. When the boys are 5 and 3 (Explorer is leased) I wouldn't be surprised to be test driving a 2009 or 2010 Escape if it's still around.
You probably won't have to wait long to see one as the '08 Escape has been introduced, a new Liberty is due, the new CR-V is out, and a new Vue is due. Probably some time next year.
You opened up this discussion by making a blatantly false (or at the very least highly exaggerated) statement.
However, in a AWD V6 edition, it puts the CR-V to shame in most preformance (sic) comparisons.
0-60 time IS considered a "performance" category.
Better resale is just part of it.
SUPERIOR engineering is #1 reason for me.
Better build quality is #2 reason.
Better handling and suspension Geometry is #3
Better resale is just the icing on the cake at #4.
The CR-V is a good little mini-van ( like the Escape ).
However, in a AWD V6 edition, it puts the CR-V to shame in most preformance comparisons. The CR-V also has a rather pathetic towing capacity realitive to the 3500lb of the V6 Escape...
There are good reasons to own both and blanket statments that one is better than the other are pointless...
The Auto AWD CR-V (Gen 2: 2002-2006) has the same 0-60 numbers as the Escape V6 AWD.
The manual version of CR-V gets to 60 2 seconds quicker than Escape V6. Manual version of Escape only comes with I4, and can barely break the 60 mph, CR-V is the true winner.
And if you tow 3500 lbs all day long, neither vehicle is right.
Since Automatuics are for girls, then Escape V6 is for girls too, because it only comes with AUTO.
Are you sure you want to do that? My puny 4 banger goes 0-60 in 8.2 seconds (G-tech) And yes, I drive stick.
Approx 3 of CR-V's sold in the US were stick, the rest were sold to girls/women.
As I said before, you cannot compare a stick to an automatic.
However, if I you allow me to use a programmer and up the shift points a couple of hundred rpm and increase the shift pressure to make it a fair contest you my friend are own....
I feel compelled to note that a good tunner can drop 0.5-1 sec off the 0-60 time because you can raise the rev limit and shift points. You can also adjust the automatic shift pressure to cause it to shift much more quickly ( same as speed shifting a stick... ) It does make the shifts way too firm for normal driving however.
I know for a fact that these Escape/Mariners respond very well to tuning. If you put a 91-93 octane ( more timming and disable the variable cam ) tune and up the shift points these cars can easly do 0-60 in the 7.5 sec range with no mechanical mods. Of course you have to run premium fuel...
P.S. Before anyone asks, the variable cam design that Ford uses is for fuel milage, not performance. By locking at the the max advance, you will generate a lot more torque down low and significantly improve the 0-60.
The ONLY reason I have one is so that I can get $400.00/month + free Insurance and milage on my companies auto re-embursment plan... It is was the only one on the approved list that I could stand to drive.... ( Think Grand am, sebring, one sutters to think about it... )
I have a 2005 500+hp Mustang GT with a Saleen Supercharger for my fun car.... Of course it is an automatic, so I guess it is a chick car too....hehehe
:mad:
; - )
It depends which side of the (one way) street you park on.
So it is OK to comapre V6 to a "puny" I4?
The best part is, the I4 wins, stick or auto.
When we compare I4 Escape Manual to I4 CR-V manual, CR-V wins.
When we compare I4 Escape auto to I4 CR-V auto, CR-V wins.
When we compare V6 Escape Auto to I4 CR-V auto, it's a tie.
When we compare V6 Escape Auto to I4 CR-V Manual, CR-V wins.
3 out of 4 CR-V wins, and one is a tie. Look like pretty darn good odds for me.
Your theory is OK, except you are foggeting the word "slushbox" is because the root of the problem with autos is the "slushbox" aka torque converter.
You must not do much drag racing if you think an auto cannot be made to beat a stick.
I should note that I like the little CR-V ( it was on the companies apporved list too). I simply found it too small for me ( 6'-4") The Mariner is not much better, but it does have a little more head and shoulder room. I also liked that tarted up interior of the Mariner better that that in the CR-V, especially the heated seats...
However, I chose the Mariner mainly because of its much higher towing capacity. It pulls my fishing boat ( about 2500lb ) far better that the little CR-V would have been able to... With towing, it is all about torque and of course a good trans cooler.
Um, the CR-V has had heated seats for awhile now.
I won't argue the acceleration numbers, although I have posted them before you more clearly than you have for us (using the same sources), and you seem to think that test numbers are WRONG if they don't reflect what you expected to see.
Also, if you let a tuner simply up the shifting points and pressure a little, the V6 Escape/Mariner can ealsy out preform the CR-V any way you want to measure it.
If we are talking tuning, then I don't think we can have a coherent discussion. Cars aren't sold "tuned" and "tuned" cars can't be tested objectively, so I discount completely the fact that the Ford/Mercury are faster "if transmissions were tuned more aggressively." It's not my fault that Ford tuned their cars conservatively and got pretty equal acceleration times and much less fuel economy. Is it Honda's fault that their transmission is tuned better for economy AND acceleration? We could push the envelope in BOTH vehicles by tweaking things here and there, but those points have little credence in a room like this. Fact is, numerous magazine have tested the CR-V under 10 seconds (albeit slightly) and the Escape over 10 seconds to 60 (also, slightly). The fact that the Escape is tenths slower (or basically, as fast) as the CR-V doesn't make it a bad choice as a vehicle. It is a great vehicle for needs like yours, when you need to tow a light boat.
Nobody's going to argue that if you need to tow, you need a V6.
It is not that I think they are wrong, it is a simple matter of fact that I KNOW that they are wrong.
I take it you're going with what makes you happy as well!
I think the discussion will be much more enjoyable if we all do a little less posturing.
Carry on!
tidester, host
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/New/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/37768/Act/Roadt- est/
"Mercury says Luxury and Premier models are bulk of Mariner sales. Their V6 has ample power for passing and merging, even with AWD, which adds only 150-160 lb. Test AWD V6 Ford Escape did 8.9 sec 0-60 mph. No opportunity yet to time Mariner, but similar weight implies similar performance. Experience with test Escapes shows 4-cyl performance only adequate at best. Automatic transmission generally smooth, but sometimes hesitates to downshift for passing."
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0504_2005_mercury_mariner/
P.S. This is MotorTrend's own truck mag offshoot. They list the 0-60 tie at 8.6sec...
Both of these sources put the 0-60 tme in the mid to high 8 sec range. That is what I have also seen first hand.. I do not know what else to say...
I am much more apt to believe the Truck Trend tests. I wonder if they have a CR-V test?
As I said before, that's only part of the equation. Unless you're getting the numbers from the same source in a comparison there is much room for error.
Different drivers, climate, altitude, etc. The driver is probably the biggest factor IMO.
Do you own both of them? Did you test both of them? Are Scape2 in disguise?
I am talking from my own experience, we have a 2005 CR-V EX 5 spd, and 2005 Escape V6 XLT auto. I can jump from one to another.
Escape "SEEMS" quicker or more powerful only because of the oval shaped throttle actuator (the name of the round thing that the throttle cable wraps around and connects the throttle plate has escaped me at this moment) Very little pedal travel opens throttle almost half open. It is very difficult to give it just a little throttle. To an inexperienced driver that may seem like "gobs of power" But if you continue pushing it, the engine runs out of air pretty fast at around 4000 RPM.
CR-V, on the other had, has very linear pedal to throttle response from its drive by wire system. The engine does not run out of breath even at the red line (6800 RPM).
If you look at the power band curves, both engines produce about 150 ft. lbs of torque at 2500 RPM. So, the 2 cylinder advantage and 600 cc's of displacement do not place Escape on top.
Since Escape can't get past 4000 RPM, all that CLAIMED 200 hp is never reached. Ford claims 200 hp at around 6000 RPM, if I remember correctly. But, I have not been able to get the engine to get to 6000 RPM in the Escape. At most, Escape owners get 160 hp out of the 3.0 liter V6.
Honda on the other hand, claims a modest 160 hp at 6800 RPM, which I can reach all day long. I get what I paid for with the Honda. While with Ford, you only get theoretical 200 hp, that you paid for, but in reality only get 160 hp.
Max power comes 1,000RPM under that, and redline is 6,500.
Personally, I'm not sure I'd drive either. Escapes are incredibly common, and look practically no different than they did when they debuted 6 years ago. It's a bore, and dated inside. The 2008 update should help though.
Not here, my dealer had at least four on the lot yesterday (it was my first in person look...I'm sort of ambivalent about it) and more on their allocation sheet. It's the Fit that is the hard to get Honda model in this market. Although my dealer did have four coming in that weren't spoken for, but they want MSRP and that ain't gonna happen.
I imagine so. 2WD CR-Vs can be pretty common here too, though. My father even had one for awhile, between Accords.
Not to rub it in, but here's a synopsis of the forecast in Birmingham, AL where I live for the next dew days, taken from our local ABC affiliate:
A Warm Weekend
Look for highs in the 70 to 73 degree range this weekend with a good supply of sunshine each day.
Gotta love record warmth in Bama. I actually went Christmas shopping in my leather flip-flops today. Weird feeling.
No, a gal at work has the 2006 CR-V. We have run them for fun, the Mariner is faster ( of course both are slooow ) and I probably weigh about 120lb more than she does and I had about 100lb of demo equipment in the back. I added a 65lb class III trailer hitch. So the CR-V had a significant weight advantage. ( Of course I know you won't believe it as I have no proof.... )
As for the rest of your post, all I can say is I have no idea what you are trying to prove or say?
My Mariner will shift at 6K on every shift if you floor it.... So I have no idea what you are trying to say...
So far, I have been calculating MPG's based or diatnce bertween refueling. Now, I get instantenous and average MPG read outs from both. Once I get enough statistical data, I will post it.
The 4 banger 0-60 is 9.8sec, the V6 is 8.6sec.
http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0504_2005_mercury_mariner/
I have personaly seen 0-60 in the 8.5sec range with my 2005 V6 Mariner. ( Wife ran it at the track one day when I was running my Mustang )
Spanger, I am a thorne in the CRV's crowd side. I used to argue these point over and over again. Kind of funny how they can take the worst 0-60 times for Escape and the best times for the CRV and call it written in stone.. Along with they take the 5spd manual numbers.. along with they fail to mention in order to achieve these numbers they have to redline the CRV through every gear!! tell me who drives their vehicle like that??
I will only buy a 'Japanese' brand until Ford and GM realize that people would rather pay full sticker price and get quality products. I am thus willing to wait in the queue until March to get a CR-V rather than buy a 'cheaper' Ford Escape. Once bitten twice shy.
Oh, because to go as fast as you can in an Escape, you what, shift at 3,000 RPM? Heck no. You have to wind out an Escape just like you have to wind out a CR-V if you want the best 0-60 numbers. I don't honestly think that you can believe that if you have ANY common sense.
Wow scape, you're really stretching it here bucko - save yourself a little credibility and read what you wrote before you click "Post My Message" because you are making less and less sense here lately.