Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Ford Escape CR-V vs Escape
8531 messages, Last post on Sep 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM
You are in the Ford Escape Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: vg33e power (Sep 16, 2009 10:54 am) Number one selling SUV in U.S. 3 years running. I guess sensibility is still guiding the buying public. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Sep 16, 2009 2:51 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 17, 2009 5:48 am) 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... |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Sep 17, 2009 2:05 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 18, 2009 5:23 am) 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... |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 18, 2009 9:07 am) 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. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: motoguy128 (Sep 21, 2009 5:48 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Ford Escape CR-V vs Escape
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda CR-V
2010 Ford Escape
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
