Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
Keep breathing, the dog days of summer will soon be gone. ;-)
i had my doubts about the plastic chromies, but they are easy to clean, as advertised.
Anybody recently cross shop them?
PS-I had a Craftsman with a Briggs and Stratton, and a Bolens with a Briggs and Stratton. Neither compares to the Honda mower. Pay the extra $100 for a product that will always work properly and last twice as long. It's like buying a Weber grill, Levis jeans or a Polo shirt. They work better, feel better and last longer. And because they last much longer, they are cheaper in the long run.
Ultimately I don't expect it to steer or handle like a Honda. But for those that just puch pedals and turn the wheel where they want to go, and don't care, it's probably a perfectly good alternative.
What do you mean by "interior flexibility". I know that the rear window on the Escape can be opened independently of the rear door, something the CRV and RAV4 don't have. This has been useful to me on Pathfinder for carrying long things like mouldings and 2 x 4s from Home Depot, or taking things to the dump. It's just added flexibility.
I am sure it doesn't stop or handle lke a Honda.
I owned a gen2 CR-V, and I liked the car. However, when it came time to buy new, I simply hated the styling of the Gen3, and I like the classic styling of the Escape. That "boxy shape" provides a much more usable interior over the rounded shapes of the other vehicles. And I also like the separate glass window opening instead of a fixed rear window.
But then I am a person who puts functionality over style (although I like the Escape style).
although some of that cargo volume comes from a deeper cargo area since the rear seat flip forward rather than folding forward creating a flat load floor.
The 4WD 4 cylinder Escape still gets 2mpg city and highway despite having a 6 speed automatic. Ford must use more of a full-time 4WD system whereas Honda, Toyota and Nissan use more of a part time system.
I suppose it is personal preference. I like my CUV's rounded and sleek so long as they don't sacrifice interior room. The CR-V doesn't. But I am biased.
And my 2008 Escape Hybrid AWD gets 30 MPG in town, about 32 on the road here on LA freeways. An FWD will get 35 in town... although it is more expensive that the CR-V. But there is no high mileage option available on the CR-V.
You are correct about Ford use of AWD; it kicks in to enhance performance and handling even on dry roads. Ford calls it "intelligent", whatever that means.
"I suppose it is personal preference. I like my CUV's rounded and sleek so long as they don't sacrifice interior room. The CR-V doesn't. But I am biased."
It is personal preference (I hate the CR-V Gen3 front end), but I have to disagree with you on the sacrifice of interior room. The Gen3 would have been HUGELY larger inside if they had kept the rear in the "box" configuration. The vehicle is larger in all dimensions outside than the Gen2, but about the same inside.
based on the new epa ratings, with our 04' escape we are averaging 7% over (epa 18, us 19+). the 09 is averaging over 15% above the epa rating (epa 20, us 23 and should go higher as it breaks in).
also, the escape has gotten quiet, which the cr-v has not.
For 2010 the CR-V is gaining 1mpg highway and city, and is expected to be a little quieter as well.
It's clear we both prefer our respective vehciles.
It is interesting about the interior room. When I shopped the Escape, I had to move the seat FORWARD because I had too much legroom for comfort. I am 6' tall. In the CR-V I did not have as much room, although there was more room in the rear of the CR-V.
But as you said, we prefer our respective vehicles. For me the shape of the Gen3 and that ugly nose were deal killers.
But as you said, we prefer our respective vehicles. For me the shape of the Gen3 and that ugly nose were deal killers.
The combined frot nand rear legroom numbrs are still higher for the CR-V, so even iff you could move hte front seat 1" further back, it would still have more total legroom. I do wish Honda had mounted it another 1/2" or 1" back. I wouldn't mind 1 more "notch".
Funny, I had the same sentiments about Escape's front end. Well not ugly, jsut rather boring. The explorer styling just seems so tired. It just reminds me of the 1980 and 90's too much. WHich si unfortunalte because I know Ford makes dramatically better vehciles than it did in the 80's and 90's... actually most are now equal or better than the competition... but I don't want anything to remind me of it's ugly past. I actually preferrd the previous genration Escape styling bett.er I wish they would have just modernized it's headlights and grill rather than making it a mini explorer. But I think they wanted to futher seperate it from it's Mazda roots. Which is funny, because the best looking and best designed vehciles Ford has are based on Mazda or joint designs.
The CR-V is a little unusual and awkward looking from some angles, but I love hte side and bakc profiles and styling.
As far as what was Honda thinking with the new style ? I think they are doing just fine. Others, many others for the numbers that buy them over some other brand, think the same way.
1. No choice if they want a brand new Accord
2. Reliability reputation
3. Because its a Honda
4. Interior room
5. Comfortableness
I really doubt that the styling is high on their roster, because subjective or not there are many people (including myself) and professional reviews (Edmunds, KBB, Motor Trend, etc.) that think the styling of the current generation (frog eyed) Accords is a step backwards from the last generation instead of an improvement.
look at the front end of a current Tahoe and the hybrid version.
Number one selling SUV in U.S. 3 years running. I guess sensibility is still guiding the buying public.
look at the front end of a current Tahoe and the hybrid version.
Seriously? Making a vehcile more boxy, doesn;t enhance the aerodynamics. Reducing hte frontal area and smoothing surfaces so there are fewer sharp angles that create turbulence does.
Most poeple don't realize that much of the improvement in aerodynamics comes from the underside and rear end, since optimizing the front end will impact impact protection and pedestrian collision requirements that Japan and Europe have.
The Tahoe was just trying it update it's look.s Ford wanted theri Escape to look bigger, more like the Explorer, like a rugged SUV. Honda wanted the CR-V to be unique and look well, like a Honda and more car-like.
Overall, I'd suspect the CR-V has a lower or equal ceofecient of drag as the Escape, but it's larger overall dimension will give it a larger frontal area.
To better understand the relationship, consider a motorcycle... Many 600cc sportbikes with only 130HP at the crank can appreach 160mph. Their coefficients of drag with a rider are actually much worse than most cars, BUT, their frontal area is perhaps 1/2 that of a car.
Actually, there are means by which once can have a "boxy" rear, and yet the aerodynamics do not suffer, but it doesn't look right for style. I forget the name of the concept, but basically it involves making the air flow such that it generates a sort of roiling motion behind the rear window, and air flows over it.
It can be interesting; for example a pickup truck is more efficient with the rear gate UP than with it down...
page 20 near bottom
I suspect that's more marketing hype. It gains 1mpg in city and highway. City mileage as it's tested would not be largely affected by such a small aerdynamic change. If the increase was only on highway mileage, I'd believe it, but since it's both, I suspect the changes to the compression, cams and fuel injectors made the greatest impact. It's apparanetly slightly more efficient at part throttle from the changes, even though peak torque output has not increased.
I think the modified front end may have helped, but was a smaller factor.
The city MPG is because of the new 2.5L engine, they were able to use it more efficiently than the old 2.3L, so yes, they did adjust a lot of the internal timings & etc.
The highway mileage, believe it or not, is helped by increasing the width of a very small chin spoiler. In my 2008 it stops short of the edges of the front bumper. In the 2009-2010, it extends further by about 3 inches on each side. Apparently this managed to cut the aerodynamic drag caused by the front tires...
Although, don't be fooled on the 2010 CR-V. IT makes 180HP now, but in real world driving, there won't be a noticeable increase because most all the gains were above 5000 RPM. Most of it likely above 6000.
On the Escape. Yes, the 2.5L is a big improvement. The 2.3L was getting dated and underperformed in the standard configuration (not the DI or turbo version) and a weak spot for both Ford and Mazda.
the '09 3.0 is about 20% more powerful, yet delivers better mileage.
it doesn't use direct injection, either.
the 6 speed shifts much better than the previous 4 speed.
The transmission was clearly the biggest improvment, but the increase in engine performance may have allowed hte enigne to use a lower gear, where it previously would have unlocked the torque converter or downshifted.
I still think overall the EPA ratings are somewhat suspect. A better measure would be to publush fuel consumption numbers for the vehcile when traveling at a steady speed, and when accerating from a stop to 60mph at a given rate, and holding a given speed up an incline. It would be much more objective than the simulated test cycle the EPA uses now.
When she test drove the CRV vs the Escape, she preferred the styling of the Escape. She also commented on the driving/seating position. Along with commenting on the overall driving feel of the Escape. Just my .02$ worth here.
“This is just one of many battles to come in the next 12 to14 months within the crossover SUV segment,” said Jessica Caldwell, senior analyst at Edmunds.com. “The Escape and CR-V will fight to outdo each other, but they’ll also have a lot of other competitors in an increasingly strong segment that includes other popular choices like the Chevrolet Equinox, Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4.”
Escape Passes CR-V In Consumer Interest (AutoObserver)
Not sure why that is - the sales race is neck and neck with Honda taking the honors for 2014 by ~25,000 units.
Any recent buyers cross-shop these two SUVs?
Top 10 Best-Selling Vehicles for 2014
A CR-V would be considered against a RAV-4.
An Escape has too much styling and tech for most CR-V drivers. They are just more conservative.
I do fit, and quite comfortably, in a CR-V.
Case closed.
As for sales, Escapes are in rental fleets, CRV's not. I've seen some pretty nice sales incentives on new Escapes lately as well.
I just bought a CPO 2013 SEL as my new winter vehicle. Nice mid level, 2.0, 5 level heated seats, 18 inch rims, touch screen.
It drives great although it sat on the dealer's lot since September. I expect it to get even better with regular driving.
Although I'm a touch over 6 ft, I had to raise the driver's seat up a bit to get comfortable.