Last post on Nov 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM
You are in the Honda CR-V
What is this discussion about?
Honda CR-V, Ford Escape, Car Safety, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV
#6808 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [scape2]
Nov 15, 2005 (11:39 am)
"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.
#6809 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [scape2]
Nov 15, 2005 (11:47 am)
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!
#6810 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [varmint]
Nov 15, 2005 (1:08 pm)
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.
#6811 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [scape2]
Nov 15, 2005 (1:09 pm)
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.
#6812 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [baggs32]
Nov 15, 2005 (2:14 pm)
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.
#6813 of 8533 Re: No [dromedarius]
Nov 15, 2005 (3:19 pm)
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.
#6814 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [explorerx4]
Nov 15, 2005 (3:24 pm)
"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?
#6815 of 8533 Re: V6 vs I4 [drive62]
Nov 15, 2005 (4:17 pm)
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'.
Nov 15, 2005 (8:48 pm)
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.
#6817 of 8533 Re: Ohhhh [dromedarius]
Nov 16, 2005 (5:24 am)
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!