GT-Keith Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) The Take-AwayHere we have two very different crossover utility vehicles — one defined by what its powertrain does and one defined by what its powertrain does not do. With ample power, a modern, obedient transmission and superior handling, the 2013 Ford Escape is unquestionably the more enjoyable vehicle to drive. Its features, too, sift it out of the crossover crowd — even if you have to pay more for them. Combined, though, they're still not enough to pull off a win. It's possible that the Escape's smaller, 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine might have reversed our decision here, but that's another test for another time. It's not performance or features that draw most buyers to this segment. And beyond those, we're hard-pressed to find meaningful reasons to choose the Escape over the CR-V. Fuel economy and practicality are what sell small SUVs and those qualities endure prominently in the 2012 Honda CR-V. Sure, the CR-V doesn't break a lot of new ground in the segment, but it does honor the primary reasons people are drawn to small SUVs in the first place. Its combination of respectable fuel economy and a large, flexible interior is a potent one. http://www.insidelin...ents_sort_form1 -CRV won because it has 2.8cu-ft more cargo space and -Escape scored 7mpg less in their observed MPG test -Yes, they compared the 231hp Ecoboost to Honda's 185hp 4 -They cite exterior dimension as the determinant for class taxonomy when its the interior that decides. Edited July 16, 2012 by GT-Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I love these mismatched tests, the results say more about the reviewer than the vehicles being assessed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I understand they must measure cargo volumes however unless you have a cage installed, does anyone really pile their crap above the rear seatback? I've always avoided it so as not to have momentum-bearing cargo in the back of my head during a panic stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 "not performance or features that draw most people to this segment" Now that is laughable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 -Escape scored 7mpg less in their observed MPG test -Yes, they compared the 231hp Ecoboost to Honda's 185hp 4 Must have been driving it like they stole it..WTF I can get 21 MPG out of the old V6 with AWD driving it like I drive my Mustang... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Must have been driving it like they stole it..WTF They probably did. My wife's old Passat with a 1.8T had a dual personality. Driving like there was an egg between your foot and the accelerator pedal, would yield 30 mpg all day long; and an easy 36 on the highway. However, if you tended to be lead-footed under acceleration, it was a gas hog--dropping the MPGs by around 5-10. Edited July 16, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Must have been driving it like they stole it..WTF I can get 21 MPG out of the old V6 with AWD driving it like I drive my Mustang... My AWD 3.7 Edge manages that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 With turbo engines, there is a dual personality. Once you tip into the turbo (by mashing the throttle) there's going to be a much higher demand for fuel. I've been inside the newest CR-V. What a dull, mundane vehicle. Okay, so it has more cargo room. Real world for most people, this will affect their ability to carry what most people need how many times?? Nothing more than haters hating as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I cannot believe that they have the GALL to call this a "comparison" test.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 It's possible that the Escape's smaller, 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine might have reversed our decision here So why didn't they extrapolate the mpg of the smaller and more comparable engine for their final decision? Because Edmunds sucks. Their old editor-in-chief Chris Wardlaw once wrote that he didn't understand why Ford and Jaguar measured the same engine (AJ V8 - Stype and Lincoln LS) and came up with 2 different displacements - 4.0 for the Jag and 3.9 for the LS. I wrote and told him that the difference was that the Jag had a slightly longer stroke (by 2-3 mm IIRC) which gave it a larger displacement. His response? "Well I don't see how that would change the displacement of the engine." That's like saying he doesn't understand how a tall glass could hold more water than a short glass of the same diameter. There were other stupid things with TSBs and not knowing the battery was in the trunk. But if these guys were any good they wouldn't be writing for Edmunds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Their old editor-in-chief Chris Wardlaw once wrote that he didn't understand why Ford and Jaguar measured the same engine (AJ V8 - Stype and Lincoln LS) and came up with 2 different displacements - 4.0 for the Jag and 3.9 for the LS. I wrote and told him that the difference was that the Jag had a slightly longer stroke (by 2-3 mm IIRC) which gave it a larger displacement. His response? "Well I don't see how that would change the displacement of the engine." That's like saying he doesn't understand how a tall glass could hold more water than a short glass of the same diameter. There were other stupid things with TSBs and not knowing the battery was in the trunk. But if these guys were any good they wouldn't be writing for Edmunds. Then there was the time that their review said they couldn't figure out how to fold down the rear seats in a (IIRC) Mercury Mountaineer--this despite the instructions being in an illustrated label on the side of the seat. Right next to the handle for folding the seat. On the side of the seatback, where you normally find the handle for folding a seat. And I'm pretty sure it was visible in one of the pictures in their review... Edited July 16, 2012 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I personally prefer the new Escape over the competition no matter what the comparos say, but again the Escape is 360 pounds heavier than the Honda and it shows up on this test when it comes to real world fuel mileage. The weight of the Escape keeps creeping up. Ford keep talking about putting its vehicles on diet, but the all new ones weigh more, not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I personally prefer the new Escape over the competition no matter what the comparos say, but again the Escape is 360 pounds heavier than the Honda and it shows up on this test when it comes to real world fuel mileage. The weight of the Escape keeps creeping up. Ford keep talking about putting its vehicles on diet, but the all new ones weigh more, not less. Yes, the engine making 25% more power had nothing to do with it at all. :rolleyes: Edited July 16, 2012 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I read the review, but where's the hilarity? Even the phrase "diaper hauling supremacy" didn't make the article amusing to read. The writer's style was actually rather insipid. Edited July 16, 2012 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Yes, the engine making 25% more power had nothing to do with it at all. :rolleyes: If you add to adult males into any vehicle, the fuel mileage will go down as that turbo will have to be used more often to stay with traffic. But I agree, the 1.6 turbo should have been used for comparison as the 2.0 is much more powerful than the Honda I4. Poor comparison so that fuel mileage shouldn't haven't even been part of comparo. Kind of like comparing Mustang GT to Civic Si in fuel mileage. That being said, I was still kind of surprised by the curb weight of new Escape. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 that turbo will have to be used more often I'm starting to wonder if anyone on these forums knows how forced induction works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggs32 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think they missed one of the important reasons for the extra weight in the Escape. Sound deadening. Other reviews I've read of the CR-V state that it's quieter than before but it's still not all that great when it comes to road and wind noise. I would bet that the Escape is way quieter on the inside than the CR-V thanks in part to its heavier sound deadening materials. Also adding weight are things like panoramic moonroofs, extra equipment to run climate control to the back seat, larger wheels and bigger tires, etc. When you look at it that way the weight gain doesn't seem so bad now does it? I also think they have it all wrong about what people want out of these things. I'm 39 and have two young boys. We just downsized from a Flex to a '12 Escape Limited. Why not the CR-V? Because the Escape has more going for it (even the last gen model like ours) when it comes to features and that's what buyers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are looking for these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 If you add to adult males into any vehicle, the fuel mileage will go down as that turbo will have to be used more often to stay with traffic. You do understand how EcoBoost turbo system works, do you? You're a Porsche slappy, so you'll be thinking of say a 930 set-up, where if you're into the turbo all the time, mileage sucks. Now, you know the object of the EB system is to get 100% torque at as low an RPM level as possible. And you know the turbo is active much earlier than say, with the Porsche system, where it's meant for red-line power. 350 lb gain for a much better, more sophisticated sled is not bad. Of course you recall how your Porsche 911 has packed on the porkage, almost 1,000 pounds over its production life, and the only way they can keep the pork down is to use materials way beyond the Escape price-point. Life isn't easy when you're a slappy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm starting to wonder if anyone on these forums knows how forced induction works. Come on, don't lump all of us in with FB... I put a switch on my turbos so that I can keep them from coming on if I want. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm starting to wonder if anyone on these forums knows how forced induction works. So why does the EB 2.0 do so much better in the Edge than the Explorer? Peppy in the Edge and doggy in the Explorer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 You do understand how EcoBoost turbo system works, do you? You're a Porsche slappy, so you'll be thinking of say a 930 set-up, where if you're into the turbo all the time, mileage sucks. Now, you know the object of the EB system is to get 100% torque at as low an RPM level as possible. And you know the turbo is active much earlier than say, with the Porsche system, where it's meant for red-line power. 350 lb gain for a much better, more sophisticated sled is not bad. Of course you recall how your Porsche 911 has packed on the porkage, almost 1,000 pounds over its production life, and the only way they can keep the pork down is to use materials way beyond the Escape price-point. Life isn't easy when you're a slappy. Sorry, I'm not taking your bait. But I will say this...not a big turbo fan no matter what the badge says. All I'm saying is that any engine will have more trouble pushing extra mass around. I never much cared for the F1 turbo era either with their 1,000 hp and whoosy, quiet sounds. Most racing series have banned them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 You're at four responses, FB. You only have one more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) So why does the EB 2.0 do so much better in the Edge than the Explorer? Peppy in the Edge and doggy in the Explorer. Edited July 16, 2012 by Hugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Different strokes for different folks, the CRV is more practical and the Escape is more sporting. It's the same story with the Focus. Don't place too much weight on the opinions of non consumers. I'm actually impressed with the CRV overall, it looks and feels more upscale than the Escape (and especially the previous CRV). I would still prefer the Escape for it's content since the CRV is just a little too practical and simple. Edited July 16, 2012 by BORG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm actually impressed with the CRV overall, it looks and feels more upscale than the Escape (and especially the previous CRV). Huh? the CRV looks a recycled turd....I dunno how its more upscale then a Titanium Escape either... 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.