Last post on Nov 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM
You are in the Honda CR-V
What is this discussion about?
Honda CR-V, Ford Escape, Car Safety, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV
#6243 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [snowman]
Jun 30, 2005 (10:33 am)
"Just to cross examination this is what Ford is doing in terms of Vehicle Dependability
2002 VDI (Covers 1999)
Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Tracer, Lincoln Continental, Mustang, F-150,
F-250, Expedition, Villager, E-Series Club Wagon
2003 VDI (Covers 2000)
Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, F-Series, Expedition, Econoline, Villager, Lincoln Town Car
2004 VDI (Covers 2001)
Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Ranger, F-150, 250, 350, Mountaineer
2005 VDI (Covers 2002)
Crown Vic, grand Marquis, Thunderbird, Lincoln LS, Lincoln Town Car, F-150, F-250,F-350, Explorer, Expedition, Windstar, Villager, E-series"
Uh, you do realize that the Escape is not on this list anywhere? So I'm afraid I'm again missing your point vis-a-vis CR-V vs. Escape .
#6244 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [stevedebi]
Jun 30, 2005 (12:03 pm)
I guess you are not reading carefully....
Technically, Escape could be in 2004 or 2005 VDI (which corresponds 2001 and 2002)...
Then I wrote
"I wouldn't expect to see Escape in that list. Escape was born in 2001 and Model year 2002 is the SECOND and the worst year of Escape which I find normal for new model to have problems."
Why are you still looking for Escape in the list?????????
If you wonder the relevancy of those two lists to the subject then here is my explanation:
I posted them to support my point that Ford is contributing more and more vehicles into that list while your beloved Honda is loosing vehicles which contradicts what you (Honda crowd) are bragging about.
Why, I guess, poeple don't find Honda any more reliable than other cars...
If you still don't get it here is another point of view:
Do you see Accord there since 2002? Is last generation Accord a bad car?
PS: Please pay attention that I am not discussing about Accord or Civic or any other models. I am pointing these models to Honda Crowd to show your nonsense in your argument.
#6245 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [snowman]
Jun 30, 2005 (2:42 pm)
"I guess you are not reading carefully..."
No, I read your post carefully. It was your presentation of Ford's supposed quality based on other models than the Escape that I was referring to. Regardless of the quality of model years 2001-2002, one cannot make a judgement on "CR-V vs. Escape" based on vehicles other than, well, uh, CR-V vs. Escape. I could care less if the Accord is on any such list; I don't own one. I own a CR-V, so your "P.S." didn't make sense to me either.
That was my point, perhaps I should have stated it simpler...
#6246 of 8533 3 year reliability study
Jun 30, 2005 (2:54 pm)
I must admit, I was surprised by the list. Kudos to GM for making it to the top. I would expect any vehicle in the early years of a new design to have more problems than one in the last year of it's design. Which is why I was surprised to see the CRV at the top in it's segment. Wasn't 2002 the first year of the new design?
#6247 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [mikefm58]
Jun 30, 2005 (3:21 pm)
if i read the results correctly, the crv gets as good a rating as a malibu. big excitement there.
actually i'm glad to see the mailbu get a good rating since i convinced my mother to break her 40 year streak of buying chrysler products.
there is more to owning a vehicle than reliability. if i hate driving it every minute, i am not thinking about the other attributes.
#6248 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [stevedebi]
Jun 30, 2005 (3:26 pm)
"I guess you are not reading carefully..."
"No, I read your post carefully. It was your presentation of Ford's supposed quality based on other models than the Escape that I was referring to. Regardless of the quality of model years 2001-2002, one cannot make a judgement on "CR-V vs. Escape" based on vehicles other than, well, uh, CR-V vs. Escape. I could care less if the Accord is on any such list; I don't own one. I own a CR-V, so your "P.S." didn't make sense to me either. "
Thank you, Steve! I don't know how many times a person can type this: The thread is CR-V vs. Escape. Not Honda vs. Ford. Not Accord vs. Crown Victoria and/or F150. Obviously, the CR-V is the more reliable vehicle. The point has been made and proven over and over again.
#6249 of 8533 Re: 3 year reliability study [dromedarius]
Jun 30, 2005 (4:04 pm)
Thank you, Steve! I don't know how many times a person can type this: The thread is CR-V vs. Escape. Not Honda vs. Ford. Not Accord vs. Crown Victoria and/or F150. Obviously, the CR-V is the more reliable vehicle. The point has been made and proven over and over again."
Yeah sure, if you see everyhting black and white, this is the point of view you can have...
"Obviously, the CR-V is the more reliable vehicle."
Just because some 3rd party firm did some research on 50635 people and CRV made to that list?
I wonder, since you are relying on this to prove your point, why can't you show me, how many Escape owners were in the pool of 50635 people. I wonder, they even got the survey?
Any of you 01-02 escape owners, did you guys get the survey?
You must note that these surveys disregard a reliable indicator of a vehicle's popularity in the only arena where it really counts: the commercial marketplace. There is only one objective measure for that: the sales charts.
Jun 30, 2005 (4:23 pm)
Since you brought JD up as an indicator of Ford's "superior" quality to Honda, I figured it would be good enough for you. Actually, that was until you realized the mistake you made by posting that, which stevedebi was quick to point out (I was thinking the same thing, but I had to wait to respond until I was on my home PC).
Besides you listing JD as a source Ford quality which actually has the CR-V as more reliable (by virtue of it being on the list every year, and the Escape having never been on it), the number of recalls for each vehicle, the fact that Edmunds lists the CR-V as the "Lowest True Cost to Own", which is yet another indicator of quality, I think it's pretty apparent. Except to you. Since you aren't going to except any kind of proof anyway, not even your own. And BTW, total sales have absolutely NOTHING to do with reliability. Thought I'd point that one out.
#6251 of 8533 Re: Well... [dromedarius]
Jun 30, 2005 (4:41 pm)
I don't quite get it why you are getting excited this much to have 2002 CRV as some survey's winner. I even indicated that I wouldn't expect to see Escape in that study.
You still need to understand that you are talking about 2002 CRv's dependability, we are in 2005. This JD report can't change the fact about transmission failures, defective suspension components, engine fires etc that are occuring NOW.
What you had in that year as competitor? Two year old Escape, strugling with new design issues.
Well since you are accepting JD as a source of quality then we have a fact here that Honda has 2 reliable vehicle in year 2002.
#6252 of 8533 Re: Well... [snowman]
Jun 30, 2005 (5:00 pm)
The ONLY factor which comes into account when talking about quality is history. Obviously, you don't want me to use history and/or third party sources. That doesn't leave a whole lot for me to use then, does it? Since you're discounting just about everything which is valid, what am I supposed to use for proof?
PS - You might want to check the engine fire issue. It has nothing to do with quality. It's a training issue, and we're talking about vehicle quality, not service quality.