Ask the Car People.SM


CR-V vs Escape

8533 messages,  Last post on Nov 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM

You are in the Ford Escape Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda CR-V, Ford Escape, Car Safety, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV

Messages Page 853 of 854

#8521 of 8533 Re: Dimensions [motoguy128] by explorerx4

Sep 16, 2009 (3:51 pm)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 16, 2009 11:32 am)
actually a lot of the front end styling of the escape (other than the plasti-chrome) has to do with aerodynamics.
look at the front end of a current Tahoe and the hybrid version.

#8522 of 8533 Re: Dimensions [vg33e power] by richk6

Sep 16, 2009 (8:15 pm)

Replying to: vg33e power (Sep 16, 2009 11:54 am)
I don't think Honda is losing ground big time in sales. Styling is subjective and those people who can't get past the G3 CRV front end are missing out in owning a superior class vehicle.
 
Number one selling SUV in U.S. 3 years running. I guess sensibility is still guiding the buying public.

#8523 of 8533 Areodynamics? by motoguy128

Sep 17, 2009 (6:48 am)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Sep 16, 2009 3:51 pm)
actually a lot of the front end styling of the escape (other than the plasti-chrome) has to do with aerodynamics.
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.

#8524 of 8533 Re: Areodynamics? [motoguy128] by stevedebi

Sep 17, 2009 (1:03 pm)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 17, 2009 6:48 am)
"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. "
 
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...

#8525 of 8533 here is an interesting article by explorerx4

Sep 17, 2009 (3:05 pm)

concerning aerodynamics, which mentions that the 09 gets 1 mpg better than the 08, due to a reshaping of the front.
 
page 20 near bottom

#8526 of 8533 Re: here is an interesting article [explorerx4] by motoguy128

Sep 18, 2009 (6:23 am)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Sep 17, 2009 3:05 pm)
concerning aerodynamics, which mentions that the 09 gets 1 mpg better than the 08, due to a reshaping of the front.
 
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.

#8527 of 8533 Re: here is an interesting article [motoguy128] by stevedebi

Sep 18, 2009 (8:47 am)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 18, 2009 6:23 am)
"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. "
 
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...

#8528 of 8533 CRV by motoguy128

Sep 18, 2009 (10:07 am)

I thought you were talking about the 2010 CR-V in terms of it's mileage going up 1mpg.
 
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.

#8529 of 8533 Re: CRV [motoguy128] by explorerx4

Sep 18, 2009 (1:17 pm)

Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 18, 2009 10:07 am)
i think the biggest difference is the transmission.
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.

#8530 of 8533 Economy improvements by motoguy128

Sep 21, 2009 (6:48 am)

An increase in power in a engine is a tricky thing ot evealuate and not a good measure of the engines overall performance. Smoetimes more power is gained by using more fuel, other times it's gained by better overall combustion efficiency, such an increase in the compression ratio.
 
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.

Messages Page 853 of 854

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement