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
Nov 14, 2005 (4:23 pm)
"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.
#6790 of 8533 Re: News [bobw3]
Nov 14, 2005 (4:26 pm)
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.
#6791 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [varmint]
Nov 14, 2005 (5:03 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.
Nov 14, 2005 (5:10 pm)
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.
#6793 of 8533 Re: Well [dromedarius]
Nov 14, 2005 (5:28 pm)
acura engines start out as honda engines not the other way around.
Nov 14, 2005 (6:22 pm)
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.
#6795 of 8533 Re: Again... [dromedarius]
Nov 14, 2005 (6:30 pm)
i try to post clearly, but not everyone gets it.
try this: the frosting is acura, but the cake is honda.
Nov 14, 2005 (7:06 pm)
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.
#6797 of 8533 Re: Thank you [dromedarius]
Nov 14, 2005 (7:26 pm)
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.
Nov 14, 2005 (7:33 pm)
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...