Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 CX5 is at least 200 pounds lighter. and my guess is the NVH of both models will reflect that........two words....road noise.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Seriously? .5" less ground clearance for a soft-roader is a big deal? You cannot honestly say that is a make-or-break difference. How many Escape buyers know the ground clearance their vehicle has anyway? sorry V8...thats TOTAL scab picking...seriously 1/2 an inch....PUMP YOUR TIRES UP.....and 4 inches in turning radius.....honestly????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Seriously? .5" less ground clearance for a soft-roader is a big deal? You cannot honestly say that is a make-or-break difference. How many Escape buyers know the ground clearance their vehicle has anyway? I was simply responding to the statement "Retains all the capabilities of the previous generation". Didn't say the loss didn't improve ride quality or anything. But anytime you lose nearly a 1/2 foot of ground clearance, clearly you are decreasing parts of its capability. Also didn't say it was a make or break deal, I wouldn't have bought one anyways, but by the stance it appears to look more like Subaru ground clearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) sorry V8...thats TOTAL scab picking...seriously 1/2 an inch....PUMP YOUR TIRES UP.....and 4 inches in turning radius.....honestly????????? Wow, see my last post. But simply put, they are loses, no matter how insignificant you feel they are. And yes, it offers improvements over the outgoing model. Has it's good and bad moves, IMHO. Worst is the design on how it looks like a Focus front end was mashed together with more of a CRV/Tucson cabin. While from certain camera angles it looks decent. Every profile image shows this flaw. Again, just my opinon. If you like/love it great. Go buy one. Edited November 16, 2011 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Exactly! pretty dramatic change, and I would have bought the old one ( if I was in the market ) for two reasons which outweighed the dated styling and its "crude" nature A) its refreshing simplicity and B) 1000 rebate with 0 % financing for 60 months.....and thats a BIG part of wht the outgoing models garnishes so much love. But, its time to move on obviously, road, wind and engine noise are so yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was simply responding to the statement "Retains all the capabilities of the previous generation". Didn't say the loss didn't improve ride quality or anything. But anytime you lose nearly a 1/2 foot of ground clearance, clearly you are decreasing parts of its capability. Also didn't say it was a make or break deal, I wouldn't have bought one anyways, but by the stance it appears to look more like Subaru ground clearance. Half an inch, not half a foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was simply responding to the statement "Retains all the capabilities of the previous generation". Didn't say the loss didn't improve ride quality or anything. But anytime you lose nearly a 1/2 foot of ground clearance, clearly you are decreasing parts of its capability. Also didn't say it was a make or break deal, I wouldn't have bought one anyways, but by the stance it appears to look more like Subaru ground clearance. Half an inch - NOT half a foot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I was simply responding to the statement "Retains all the capabilities of the previous generation". Didn't say the loss didn't improve ride quality or anything. But anytime you lose nearly a 1/2 foot of ground clearance, clearly you are decreasing parts of its capability. Also didn't say it was a make or break deal, I wouldn't have bought one anyways, but by the stance it appears to look more like Subaru ground clearance. I wouldnt say 1/2 an inch has ANYTHING to do with capabilities......neither does a turning radius of a mere 4 inches....when is either going to effect capabilities in real world conditions..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Half an inch - NOT half a foot! Got ya, my bad, I apologize. Must have misread .5" for 5". And maybe it's some of the low profile tires and plastic siding playing tricks on my eyes. But it doesn't appear to have similar ground clearance. I wonder what points they are comparing to make that ground clearance statement. I've seen some ridiculous comparisons in the past of ground clearance, so just intrigued. Edited November 16, 2011 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I wonder what points they are comparing to make that ground clearance statement. I've seen some ridiculous comparisons in the past of ground clearance, so just intrigued. It is supposed to be from the lowest hanging item on the underside of the vehicle. (Though some people do not include the exhaust when they measure....I'm pretty sure manufacturers do) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) It is supposed to be from the lowest hanging item on the underside of the vehicle. (Though some people do not include the exhaust when they measure....I'm pretty sure manufacturers do) Exactly, and that could be of issue. Say for example, the lowest point on the outgoing Escape was the outer most portion of the Control Arm, and the lowest point on this Escape is the frame or muffler. In that situation, the older Escape would have a decided advantage, because as it was conquering obstacles, the control arm would go up/down with the tire, and means the undercarriage is higher. Whereas if the frame/muffler on this new Escape is the lowest point, it'd cause the new Escape to get hung up much easier. Not saying this is true or not about the old/new Escape. Just wonder what are the two point they are comparing between each model to make a more educated decision on the true difference. Kind of like trucks with a IFS and SFA. Typically the lowest point on the SFA axle is the pumpkin, where as the IFS is the end of the control arm. In most cases, it's a little easier to get the pumpkin hung up on an object than it would be the end of the control arm. I prefer the simplicity of the SFA, but understand the IFS has it's benefits here and there. Edited November 16, 2011 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Exactly, and that could be of issue. Say for example, the lowest point on the outgoing Escape was the outer most portion of the Control Arm, and the lowest point on this Escape is the frame or muffler. In that situation, the older Escape would have a decided advantage, because as it was conquering obstacles, the control arm would go up/down with the tire, and means the undercarriage is higher. Whereas if the frame/muffler on this new Escape is the lowest point, it'd cause the new Escape to get hung up much easier. Not saying this is true or not about the old/new Escape. Just wonder what are the two point they are comparing between each model to make a more educated decision on the true difference. Let me re-phrase your statement to say the exact same thing, but give a decidedly different point of view (ie: not soundling like bashing the new Escape without having details). Here goes: Exactly, and that could be of issue. Say for example, the lowest point on the outgoing new Escape was the outer most portion of the Control Arm, and the lowest point on this the outgoing Escape is the frame or muffler. In that situation, the older new Escape would have a decided advantage, because as it was conquering obstacles, the control arm would go up/down with the tire, and means the undercarriage is higher. Whereas if the frame/muffler on this new the outgoing Escape is the lowest point, it'd cause the new old Escape to get hung up much easier. Not saying this is true or not about the old/new Escape. Just wonder what are the two point they are comparing between each model to make a more educated decision on the true difference. Again, it is a soft-roader, so it doesn't make any difference! It will clear all speed bumps and non-rock crawling situations with aplomb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yeah, I don't think anyone mistook the outgoing Escape for anything but a mall-crawler. Not sure why the new one would be judged any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yeah, I don't think anyone mistook the outgoing Escape for anything but a mall-crawler. Not sure why the new one would be judged any different. Precisely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibinubu12 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Why update the 2.5? Why not just use the Focus 2.0 GDI? Could have been tuned to bump the torque up a bit, probably increase base model fuel efficiency as well. I'll be disappointed if the 2013 Fusion uses the 2.5 instead of the GDI 2.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Why update the 2.5? Why not just use the Focus 2.0 GDI? Could have been tuned to bump the torque up a bit, probably increase base model fuel efficiency as well. I'll be disappointed if the 2013 Fusion uses the 2.5 instead of the GDI 2.0. Most likely because of Torque requirements. I don't think the GDI 2.0L puts out enough torque...not to mention the 2.5L is cheaper without the GDI on it. And I'd expect the Fusion to have the same engine lineup sans the 1.6L EB as the Escape too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jr.f Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The Engine Compartment is small On these trucks. The hood is smaller than it looks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 My only real gripe ... is the fender vent ... The same bozo put one on the previous gen Focus. Lasted 1 year IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 * sidenote, on autoblog after a couple of the usual imbecile sideswipes at Ford as a whole, our "buddy" P71/ Matt/ Z71SLVY, True Voice had his comments deleted and is seemingly unable to post any nasty remarks....now all he can apparently do is vote down positive comments....sheesh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The same bozo put one on the previous gen Focus. Lasted 1 year IIRC. Not my cup of tea either if its functional I have no issue, but the SWATH of chrome is heavy handed...treat chrome like jewelry Ford, compliment the contours dont blatantly draw attention to it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 This, or a Lincoln Escape, could make a very good daily driver ... Personally, I had hoped the Kuga would go to the Lincoln/Mercury dealers, keeping the original name and a much more "SUV-styled" version be sold under the Escape badge. I still think there is room for 2 vehicles with different "green houses" in the US, but I can NOT see a "traditional" styled SUV in the Lincoln line up.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 but I can NOT see a "traditional" styled SUV in the Lincoln line up.. Curious, is the Explorer "traditional" styled to you? I feel a version of that would certainly do much better for Lincoln than the MKT has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I don't think the GDI 2.0L puts out enough torque...not to mention the 2.5L is cheaper without the GDI on it. I keep waiting for the "cost reduced" 2.0L PFI to show up in the Focus, with the same HP and fuel economy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jr.f Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Personally, I had hoped the Kuga would go to the Lincoln/Mercury dealers, keeping the original name and a much more "SUV-styled" version be sold under the Escape badge. I still think there is room for 2 vehicles with different "green houses" in the US, but I can NOT see a "traditional" styled SUV in the Lincoln line up.. The Lincoln Version will be on the same platform as the escape. some tooling is done in the plant for it. Edited November 16, 2011 by Jr.f Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 The fender vent is this generation's coach light, vinyl roof and opera window. It wouldn't be there if people as a whole had a negative opinion of it. However, in a few years it will seem (to these same people!) terribly gauche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.