HONDA CRV 2013 AutoCars Honda Civic | Honda Accord, Honda City, Honda Brio, Honda Amaze, Honda odyssey, Honda Assure, Honda Auto Terrace, Honda Customer Jazz, New Honda Cars in United States/America/USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, India, Japan

Showing posts with label 2013 Ford Escape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013 Ford Escape. Show all posts

Honda Cars : January 2013 SUV Sales - Ford Escape Tops Honda CR-V, Explorer Dominates Midsizers | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 6:36 AM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape



By Edward A. Sanchez

Just showing that success can't always be taken for granted, the first month of 2013 was a stunning role reversal for the Honda CR-V, with sales falling nearly 8000 units from December, as well as being surpassed by the archrival Ford Escape by more than 2000 units. The steady-as-she-goes Chevrolet Equinox maintained its third-place spot, with sales up a strong 26.1 percent compared with last year.
The Ford Explorer surged decisively ahead of the Jeep Grand Cherokee with a more than 3000 unit margin, leading the pack for the midsize models. The Toyota RAV4 took fifth place overall, up 18.2 percent from a year earlier, with sales a mix of leftover 2012 inventory and the all-new 2013 model starting to roll into showrooms. Two other fixtures on the 2012 SUV sales list, the Nissan Rogue and Jeep Wrangler, stayed in the top 10, but not as dominant as they have been in the past, with the Rogue taking eighth place for January, and the Wrangler coming in ninth.
2013-ford-escape-titanium
1. Ford Escape - 19,939, Up 15.5 Percent
The race for the crown between the Escape and Honda CR-V has been the sales battle to watch for 2012, with the two trading places between first and second for most of the year, but the Honda prevailing most of the time. But not for January. Ford pulled off a more than 2000-unit lead over the CR-V for January, prevailing despite a rash of embarrassing recalls late in 2012. Ford's proactive treatment of the issues, as well as the Escape's compelling breadth of trim levels and powertrain options, seems to be paying off.
2013 SUV of the Year Contenders
2. Honda CR-V - 17,809, Down 6.1 Percent
Although bumped off the top spot by the Escape for January, you can count on the CR-V retaking the sales lead sometime during 2013. No major official updates have been announced for the 2014 model-year CR-V, but a good bet would be the addition of the Earth Dreams direct-injected four-cylinder and CVT from the Accord, along with some styling tweaks. We also don't yet know a timeline for the 2014 model's on-sale date. Model years have lately become very arbitrary, case-in-point with Toyota's 2013 RAV4 going on-sale close to New Year's and the 2014 Mazda CX-5 rolling into dealers in late January. Our guess would be late-spring, mid-summer for the availability of a refreshed 2014 CR-V.
2013-chevrolet-equinox-ltz-3-6
3. Chevrolet Equinox - 17,223, Up 26.1 Percent
The Equinox has tenaciously held on to its third-place sales spot among SUVs for quite a while now. January was up a solid 26.1 percent over 2012. But with the new Toyota RAV4 now in showrooms, it will be interesting to see how well the Equinox fares against the all-new RAV. The Equinox now has the advantage of a V-6 option over the RAV4's now exclusively four-cylinder model range, although historically, the V-6 has not been a huge seller, and its days may be numbered in the Equinox as well.
2013 Ford Explorer Limited
4. Ford Explorer - 14,554, Up 46 Percent
The Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee have duked it out for the better part of 2012 for top spot among the midsize SUVs. January gave the Explorer a dominant 3000+ unit lead over the Grand Cherokee, but that shouldn't be cause for complacency in Dearborn. Jeep just unveiled a comprehensively-refreshed 2014 Grand Cherokee with a styling refresh, improved fuel economy, eight-speed transmissions across-the-board, and a decisive edge in towing capacity over the Explorer.
2013-Toyota-Rav4
5. Toyota RAV4 - 11,610, Up 18.2 Percent
January is an interesting month for the RAV4, and not necessarily indicative of its fortunes going forward in 2013. With an uncharacteristically late introduction for a 2013 model, the new RAV4 has just recently started to supplant the leftover inventory of 2012 models. It was clear Toyota had the Honda CR-V squarely in its sights with the 2013 redesign, hoping its more tightly focused formula might challenge the 800-pound gorilla of the segment. We've driven the new RAV, and feel it is a supremely competent, if safe-to-a-fault entry. We shall see if it has the goods to be a top-three player.
2012-jeep-grand-cherokee
6. Jeep Grand Cherokee - 11,065, Up 4 Percent
Although knocked down a few notches by a surprisingly strong Explorer for January, don't count the Grand Cherokee out. It has proven its enduring popularity, and with the 2014 redesign just months away from the showroom, including the highly anticipated diesel model, the refreshed Grand could prove to be a formidable competitor to the Explorer, and retake midsize lead.
2013-2014 Truck and SUV Buyer's Guide
7. Ford Edge - 9614, Up 15.6 Percent
Filling the "just right" niche for many customers looking for something larger and more comfortable than the Escape, but smaller and more fun to drive than the three-row Explorer, the Edge has never been a consistent top-five player, but with monthly sales figures usually in the five-figure range, and six-figure annual sales totals, the Edge is a valuable player in Ford's SUV lineup. Like its little brother Escape, the Edge offers a variety of trim levels and powertrain options for all buyers.
2013-2014 Truck and SUV Buyer's Guide
8. Nissan Rogue - 8951, Down 9.6 Percent
On its face, the Rogue seems like an unlikely candidate for being a top-selling SUV, having debuted in 2008, and styled like a shrunken last-generation Murano. Power and fuel economy, while acceptable for the class, aren't class-leading. But for pure practicality and value, the Rogue is a reasonably compelling purchase, and its no-nonsense functionality has kept it among the top 10 for the better part of 2012. Due for a full redesign soon, it will be interesting to see how the Rogue fares against fresher, more efficient rivals.
2013-jeep-wrangler-rubicon
9. Jeep Wrangler - 8854, Up 12 Percent
The originator of the SUV genre continues to find fans from coast to coast, and while nowhere near the SUV leaders in fuel economy or practicality, mid-cycle updates have given the Wrangler a surprising level of refinement, making it a reasonable proposition for a daily driver, rather than just a weekend toy. Changes ahead for the standard-bearer could include an optional diesel, and as usual, more trim and special-edition variations.
2013-Toyota-Highlander
10. Toyota Highlander - 8831, Up 28.8 Percent
If consistency is a winning formula, the Highlander delivers for Toyota. Selling considerably fewer units than the RAV4, the Highlander is nonetheless a solid top 10 model, ceding the spot occasionally to the Kia Sorento, but often breaking the five-figure monthly sales mark. With prices ranging from the high $20s to mid $40s, there's a Highlander for every taste and budget. But Toyota had better keep an eye out for the redesigned 2014 Sorento, bringing better economy, more power, richer materials and improved cabin tech to the party.


Source;


, , , , , ,

Honda Cars : Kelley Blue Book: Small SUVs, Big Capabilities: 2012/2013 Compact Crossover Comparison | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 7:48 PM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape



By Tony Swan
Concerns about fuel prices may have tempered America's love affair with sport-utility vehicles, but it has by no means brought it to an end. Think of it as a refocusing, a renewal based on a reassessment of contemporary realities. As a consequence of these re-prioritized priorities, compact SUVs have become one of the hottest categories in a slowly reviving U.S. auto market.
We've rounded up five of the top contenders in the compact-crossover SUV class for this comparison. All are at the affordable end of the spectrum. Three are new -- the Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, and Mazda CX-5. Chevy's Equinox has been with us since the 2010 model year, while the Toyota RAV4 is the group's veteran, its current design dating to 2006. That's well beyond middle age in car years, but as one of the segment's strongest sellers the RAV4 can't be ignored.
We put the vehicles through their paces, poked, prodded, slammed doors, checked connectivity, cargo holds, front seats, back seats, fit, finish, and window stickers, debated details, argued merits, and ultimately came to a consensus.


Fifth Place: 2012 Toyota RAV4 LTD

The Toyota RAV4 has been with us since 1996, and has maintained a strong presence in the compact SUV class ever since. Although its novel semi-convertible and 3-door variants have long since disappeared, it continues to hold at least one trump card versus its many competitors -- an optional third-row seat.
The side-hinged rear door and external spare tire mount are unique to the RAV4 as well, but these distinctions are no longer perceived as positive, at least by our test crew. They're likely to disappear when this generation of the RAV4, number three, gives way to number four late this fall.
The redesign probably can't come too soon for Toyota dealers, because even after some cosmetic freshening last year, the current RAV4 is definitely showing its age. This is most apparent within, where lots of hard plastic lends a cheapish note to the interior materials, the instrumentation looks dated compared to some of the eye-pleasing displays in the new vehicles, and the nav screen isn't well shrouded, suffering from washout in bright sun as a consequence.
The seats provide reasonable comfort, though there's not much lateral support. Leather trim -- part of a $4,040 navigation option group -- enhances the interior experience, and the package also adds heating to the front seats (power adjustabile on the driver's side), plus power lumbar support. Besides the nav and seating highlights, the package also includes a power tilt/slide moonroof and a 120-volt AC power outlet.
The rear seats offer fore-aft adjustability, and the seatbacks also recline. The Toyota also boasts the top cargo capacity in this group. This generous cargo hold is a function of a design conceived to accommodate an optional third row of seating ($850), as noted earlier. It's a bragging point, but the reality of the RAV4's third row is extremely snug, making the fore-aft adjustability of the middle row a necessity, rather than a nicety.
While the RAV4 may be superannuated in some ways, its chassis rigidity still measures up well versus its newer competitors. However, Toyota has chosen to exploit this virtue in favor of smooth ride quality, rather than crisp responses. There's substantial body roll in hard cornering, and the electric power steering system confuses effort with road feel. The suspension tuning adds up to a vehicle that's reasonably comfortable, but not very engaging for the driver, despite excellent forward sightlines.
The RAV4's biggest dynamic demerit, however, lies with its powertrain -- specifically, its 4-speed automatic transmission. Toyota offers a very robust V6 engine option for this vehicle (269 horsepower, 246 lb-ft of torque) and a 5-speed automatic to go with it. But allied with the standard 2.5-liter 4-cylinder (179 horsepower, 172 lb-ft of torque) the gearing gaps make the engine work hard and loud when the driver kicks down for passing or a freeway merge.
With the exception of the Honda CR-V, most vehicles in this class offer 6-speed automatics, a plus for smooth performance and fuel economy. The 4-speed automatic underlines the fuel economy aspect. Even without 4-wheel drive, at 22 mpg city/28 highway, the RAV4's EPA fuel economy ratings are the lowest among the 4-cylinder vehicles in this group.
As noted, this RAV4 is essentially a lame duck. There's a major redesign en route, which will undoubtedly address some if not all of our reservations. However, a case can be made for acquiring the current model. Our well-equipped test vehicle -- leather, navi, power moonroof -- was competitively priced in this group at $29,090, and when the new 2013 Toyota RAV4s begin rolling into showrooms there are bound to be bargains among the remaining 2012 models.

Fourth Place: 2012 Chevrolet Equinox FWD LTZ

The Chevrolet Equinox competes in the compact category, but it's by far the biggest kid on this playground, as well as the heaviest. It's also the only vehicle in our test group to come to the starting line with a V6 engine -- 3.0 liters, 264 horsepower, 222 lb-ft of torque -- adding $1,500 to the bottom line.
As equipped, our front-drive test vehicle was EPA rated for 17 mpg city/24 highway, lowest in the test group -- it's intriguing to note that in 2013 models the V6 option is GM's even-more-powerful direct-injection 3.6-liter: 301 horsepower, 272 lb-ft of torque, with the same fuel economy ratings.
This is a strong testimonial for the efficiency of direct fuel injection, but if MPG is a top priority the best bet with the Equinox is the standard 2.4-liter 4-cylinder. Although its output -- 182 horsepower, 172 lb-ft of torque -- manages just ho-hum acceleration in a vehicle this size (curb weights can run up to two tons), its 22 mpg city/32 mpg highway ratings (20/29 with all-wheel drive) compare well with the rest of the class.
Fuel economy notwithstanding, test staff gripes with the 3.0-liter V6 had to do with performance. Considering its big edge in power, we expected a little more verve when the foot feed went floorward, but we were disappointed.
On the other hand, the standard 6-speed automatic was a typical GM Hydra-Matic unit -- smooth, responsive and equipped with a manual mode that operates via a little switch atop the shift lever. While this device is far from ideal, it does help to make the most of the engine's powerband.
Other categories on the Equinox's dynamic scorecard drew indifferent responses. The steering was criticized for heavy low-speed effort, and limited tactile information about what was going on with the front wheels. The substantial weight slowed responses in abrupt maneuvers, and the 40-foot turning circle (42 feet with 19-inch wheels) used up a lot of parking lot.
Still, ride quality was reasonably smooth, and the Equinox driver gets a better-than-average view of what's going on around the vehicle, particularly straight ahead.
While size may be a limiting factor in terms of dynamics, it does provide benefits inside. Rear-seat passengers in particular will appreciate the roomy interior, augmented by the rear seat's fore-aft adjustability. Even the center seating position is habitable for more than three blocks, something that can't be said for many 5-passenger vehicles.
However, rear seat roominess does come at the expense of some cargo space -- the Equinox is only mid-pack in this respect -- and the rear seats don't fold completely flat.
Although interior fit and finish didn't quite measure up to the Honda -- one or two trim panels that didn't quite match up, a few uneven panel gaps, some hard plastic saved from looking tacky by attractive graining -- the Equinox comes very well equipped in the LTZ trim level. The list of standard features includes power front seats, leather upholstery, heated front seats, heated power mirrors, Bluetooth connectivity, premium audio, a luggage rack, foglights, halogen projector beam headlights, and a power rear liftgate.
The V6 engine added $1,500, 18-inch chrome wheels another $1,000, red metallic paint $325, Chevy's MyLink hands-free smartphone integration $100, and GM's lane departure warning/forward collision alert system, $295 -- $3,220 in options.

The grand total: $33,250, the highest price tag in this group.

Third Place: 2013 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring
Launched earlier this year, the CX-5 represents a bold departure for Mazda, wrapped in one of the more obscure slogans in automotive marketing history: Skyactiv Technology. So what does that mean?
Basically, Mazda's new system is a total vehicle approach -- in a word, holistic -- to engineering and design, integrating all elements: engine, transmission, chassis, bodyshell, suspension, brakes, steering, everything.
The process begins with the vehicle concept and continues through design to final production signoff, and it emphasizes two basic goals: minimizing mass, maximizing mpg. This isn't exactly new -- spurred by increasingly stringent fuel economy requirements, most carmakers are headed in the same direction.
But Mazda has taken the approach another step, and the CX-5 showcases the effort. Weighing in at less than 3,200 pounds with front-wheel drive and a 6-speed automatic transmission, the CX-5 is one of the lightest vehicles in this class.
Low mass and a fuel-thrifty 2.0-liter direct-injection 4-cylinder engine add up to high EPA mpg ratings: 25 city/31 highway, best in class for an all-wheel-drive compact crossover.
Unfortunately, the new engine's thriftiness comes at the expense of power. At 155 horsepower and 150 lb-ft of torque, the CX-5's engine trails the other four in this fleet, and that was a prime factor in keeping the Mazda from a top spot on the scorecards: 0-to-60 mph in about 9.5 seconds is about as deliberate as it gets in this class.
On the other hand, fun-to-drive isn't limited to acceleration. There are other elements -- feline responses, laser-precise steering, limited body roll. The CX-5's developmental priority may have been fuel economy, but Zoom-Zoom -- it's how you say fun-to-drive at Mazda -- is very much part of the mix. Think SUV usefulness with Miata soul.
Our CX-5 tester was a Grand Touring model, which includes a lot of upscale features as standard equipment: heated leather-trimmed seats (picked out with attractive red stitching), power moonroof, leather-wrapped steering wheel with auxiliary control switches (cruise, audio, Bluetooth), dual zone auto climate control, premium audio, power front seat adjustment, and 19-inch alloy wheels.
Safety features are consistent with contemporary standards: stability control, traction control, antilock braking, blind spot monitor, and air bags galore, though a rear cross-traffic detection system is conspicuous by its absence.
Although the interior color palette ran heavily to black, the Mazda drew high marks for the quality of its interior appointments, for a high level of fit and finish, and for its sporty front seats, which provided best-in-test lateral support. There were minor demerits for the instruments -- their gray on charcoal markings are hard to read in the daylight -- as well as for a rather conservative dashboard design and one of the smaller cargo holds in the group.
On the other hand, the CX-5 emerged as one of the value leaders in this pack. Its $27,840 base price folds in a lot of standard equipment, and its $29,455 as-tested total added basically one major option -- the Grand Touring Tech Package. It includes a nav system, adaptive HID headlights with auto leveling, car alarm, and advanced keyless entry system for $1,325, certainly one of the least expensive factory nav system packages on the market.
The stylish CX-5 figures is a dark horse in the compact crossover derby, handicapped by its rather tepid acceleration, the trade for high mpg. Even so, the Mazda provides a level of dynamic response and driver engagement that's tops. And that languid 0-to-60 progress can be improved by a tenth or three by opting for a slick-shifting 6-speed manual transmission, the only manual transmission option in this group.
The manual gearbox is offered only with the basic CX-5 Sport, but it enhances driver involvement and boosts highway fuel economy to 35 mpg. If fun-to-drive is important, the CX-5 is like your childhood pal who was always ready to play.

Second Place: 2013 Ford Escape SE

Like the CX-5, the Escape is brand new for 2013, and represents a dramatic change of direction. New foundations, adapted from the front-wheel drive Ford Focus. And a decidedly new look, slick and contemporary, replacing the blocky, truckish look of the previous generation.
Also like the CX-5, the Escape's new chassis was the starting point for a very agile dynamic profile -- prompt responses in quick maneuvers, good control of body motions. The electric power steering system isn't quite as informative and precise as the Mazda's, but the driver involvement and gratification is nevertheless a plus.
However, though it's similar in size -- toward the smaller end of the compact crossover scale -- and in its contemporary good looks, the Escape has a bigger menu of choices for prospective buyers than its Mazda contemporary. For example, it offers three 4-cylinder engine options, two of them turbocharged (EcoBoost): a 2.5-liter (168 horsepower, 170 lb-ft of torque, naturally aspirated), an EcoBoost 2.0-liter (240 horsepower, 270 lb-ft), and an EcoBoost 1.6-liter (178 horsepower, 184 lb-ft).
The 1.6-liter is new to the U.S. market, and powered our Escape tester. All three engines are paired with the same 6-speed automatic transmission, but 4-wheel drive is offered only with the turbocharged versions. Like most of our test fleet, this Escape was a front-driver. And like the Equinox, an Escape equipped with the most powerful engine option is rated to tow up to 3,500 pounds.
The 1.6 didn't get rave reviews from everyone involved -- there were comments about hints of turbo lag before the engine got into the sweet spot of its powerband, and a little too much noise when it was working hard. However, the 1.6 gets good EPA fuel economy numbers -- 23 mpg city/33 highway -- and delivered generally respectable performance measured against the other contestants in this derby.
And there's always the option of the EcoBoost 2.0-liter for power mongers.
Though the Escape ranks next-to-last in this group for interior volume -- only the CX-5 has less -- that volume embraces a very attractive interior, with sporty front seats that are a match for the Mazda's and snazzy instrument and control graphics that lend splashes of electronic color to the dashboard.
There's also a surprising amount of cargo capacity -- over 34 cubic feet behind the rear seatbacks and over 68 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down. However, that rearmost cargo hold compromises rear-seat legroom a bit, and the swoopy roofline limits rear headroom, especially when the Escape is equipped with the optional Panorama double power sunroof ($1,395), present on our test vehicle.
Like all new Fords coming along these days, the Escape's secondary controls included Sync infotainment and the updated version of the MyFord Touch system, augmented by voice command. Though improved, the latter still provoked some test crew grumbling about having to jab the electronic buttons more than once to achieve the desired result, as well as a little wistful wishing for a good old-fashioned rotary knob or two.
The Escape's passive safety features are on par with the times, including plenty of airbags (front, driver's knee, side and side-curtain), and Blind Spot Information System (BLIS), which flashes a light on the side mirror when another vehicle is nearby in a parallel lane.
Base pricing for a new Escape is competitive, but injudicious option-shopping can run the tally up quite rapidly. Our SE tester, second of four trim levels (S, SE, SEL, Titanium) carried a base price of $25,895. The moonroof added $1,395, navigation system another $1,570, and a perimeter alarm system tacked on $440, for an as-tested total of $29,345, a competitive price for an attractive vehicle.
The Escape is good to look at, entertaining to drive, and attractive within. There are caveats. Though braking performance seemed strong, there were reports of slightly mushy pedal feel. Curb weights are mystifyingly high for a relatively small crossover SUV -- over 3,500 pounds for this tester, according to Ford, more than 200 pounds heftier than the CX-5 -- and ride quality can be a little too stiff on patchy pavement.
But if the Escape gives something away to the Honda CR-V in terms of refinement, it's clearly a stronger rival than ever before.

Winner: 2012 Honda CR-V EX-L Navi

With the exception of 2011, when Japan's catastrophic earthquake and Thailand flooding choked production down to a trickle, the CR-V has been the bestseller in this class for years, and often the bestseller of all SUVs, great and small. Which raises the tricky question of what's next?
Honda essentially invented the segment in 1995 with the first-generation CR-V, and subsequent generations have kept the Civic-based crossover at the front of the pack.
Introduced last fall, Honda's response to the "what's next" challenge was conservative, even cautious.  The wheelbase is unchanged at 103.1 inches -- shortest in this group -- while length and height shrink an inch, to 178.1 and 65.1, respectively.
This puts the CR-V at the small end of our test-SUV spectrum, but in typical Honda fashion its interior volume seems to belie the exterior dimensions. Basic cargo capacity -- the space behind the rear seats -- is substantial at 37 cubic feet, as is the space with the rear seats folded: 71 cubic feet. There's also plenty of passenger room, front and rear, and numerous nooks and cubbies for small-object storage, another typical Honda strong suit.
Passive safety features are top drawer -- five stars overall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
But the interior element that immediately grabs eyeballs is the quality of the materials, the straightforward logic of the various controls, the supportive front bucket seats, and the excellent forward sightlines. Honda's old advertising tagline -- "we make it simple" -- is in evidence here. Acclimating oneself to this vehicle is as easy as getting in, starting the engine, and driving off.
Pricing makes the CR-V's many strengths even more appealing. The window sticker bottom line on our EX-L Navi tester (Honda counts navigation-equipped vehicles as separate trim levels) was $29,575. This includes pretty much everything in the CR-V inventory -- (inhale) leather upholstery and trim, navigation system with voice recognition and rear view camera, power moonroof, DVD entertainment system, heated front seats with driver-side power adjustability, Bluetooth connectivity with streaming audio, USB audio interface and Pandora connectivity, SMS text messaging, 328-watt 7-speaker premium audio, 17-inch aluminum alloy wheels (exhale).
A power rear liftgate would be a useful addition to the foregoing, as would a blind-spot warning system, a la Ford. And, of course, in real 4-season climates all-wheel drive is always welcome -- and available, for a price. But beyond that, it's hard to think of anything to add.
One of the reasons Honda is able to offer the new CR-V with attractive pricing can be found in the powertrain. The engineers have squeezed a little more thrust out of the 2.4-liter engine -- now with 185 horsepower and 163 lb-ft of torque -- but while other carmakers are embracing the efficiency of direct fuel injection, Honda has been resisting the cost.
Honda also resisted the trend to 6-speed automatic transmissions -- the CR-V retains the 5-speed automatic of the previous generation.  However, this doesn't seem to extract much of a fuel economy penalty -- at 23 mpg city/31 highway the CR-V's EPA ratings are competitive.
Similarly, the Honda's straight-line performance stacks up well versus its 6-speed rivals: 0-to-60 mph takes about 8.5 seconds.
The Honda CR-V isn't as entertaining an SUV to drive as the Ford Escape or the Mazda CX-5. The suspension tuning is softer, the new electric power steering system is novocaine numb, conveying essentially no information to the driver, and the evolutionary styling update, with its bigger rear roof pillar, creates a good-sized rear quarter blind spot.
But the CR-V's blend of smooth ride, smooth power, competitive fuel economy, outstanding assembly quality, first rate materials, quiet operation, exceptional comfort, and excellent value story trump its few soft points. Just as it trumps the rest of this field.

 Source;
http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/small-suvs-big-capabilities-20122013-compact-crossover-comparison/


, , , , , , , , , ,

Honda Cars : How Ford, dealership handled this 2013 Escape recall | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 7:30 AM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape

I don't normally like to put up bad press on recalls, especially from brands considered competitors to Honda, being as I am obviously a pro-Honda site I've always thought it would just come across as brand bashing. This however is an interesting read as to how things were handled, I've never seen anything like this before.... good on Ford.
My 2013 Ford Escape was taken by flatbed to the dealership and was replaced temporarily by a Ford Focus with 4 miles on the odometer.
By GREGORY SKWIRA of www.autonews.com

DETROIT -- I've had vehicles recalled before. But I've always been able to make it to the first payment.
So it came as a surprise when my cell phone rang Saturday morning and Southgate Ford in suburban Detroit told me my shiny 2-week-old Ford Escape was in need of attention -- as in right now.

I was away from home selling pottery at an art fair -- my other full-time job -- and (embarrassing for someone in my line of work) was a couple of days behind on auto industry news. I hadn't heard.

With most recalls you drop off the vehicle whenever -- next week, next month. This one was different: A manufacturing error by a supplier could cause a part in the fuel line to fail, potentially causing a 2013 Escape with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine to make like it's a Weber grill.

The woman on the phone was personable, courteous, professional, apologetic and eager to help. Here's how it would work:

My Escape would be taken by flatbed to the dealership and a rental car would be delivered. Parts are to begin arriving this week, and the Escape would be returned with a repaired fuel line, a wash job and a full tank of gas. (Alas, I had filled up about two miles before parking the Escape in the driveway.)

This afternoon, the loaner -- a new Focus with 4 miles on the odometer -- arrived, and my Escape headed off to the hospital. Earlier in the day, the woman at Southgate Ford had called twice to keep me apprised of the timing.

And, between those two calls, someone from Ford's customer service operation phoned to make sure the dealership had begun the process and that I was OK with it. She provided a case number and phone numbers in case I had questions, and said her office would be following up with phone calls.

Of course, in an ideal world you don't want to be delivering cars -- especially a new design of a very important model -- that can become rolling bonfires. It's a major screw-up in a very important launch. (Of a very nice vehicle, I should add.) But there are ways to be smart when you mess up, and Ford found a lot of them.

I'm sure the conversation between Ford and the errant supplier is vigorous and heated. But however that finger-pointing turns out, the bottom line is that the car-shopping public won't remember some Tier 2 supplier of which they've never heard; it's Ford that takes the hit.

Someone, or some group of people, at Ford was smart enough to know that and to get things done right.
Granted, it's easier to do that when there are only 4,800 vehicles in owners' hands. But the adjective that comes to mind is "Lexus-like."

Years ago, soon after Lexus (what? a Japanese luxury brand?) came to the United States, it had to call back some vehicles. Lexus gave owners excellent, thoughtful service of a type not seen before in auto industry recalls. People who watch these things say it was a key element in the brand becoming a player in the luxury market -- or at least not washing out before it had a chance to prove itself.

So my new flawed 2013 Escape, with 281 miles on the odometer, is at this moment rolling down the freeway on a flatbed. But I feel pretty good about Ford and about the dealership that sold it to me -- and that says a lot about how the company is handling this.


, , , , ,

Honda Cars : Inside Line: 2013 Ford Escape vs. 2012 Honda CR-V Comparison Test | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 7:30 AM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape

Here's a good read comparing two very good vehicles....
Baseless Brawn vs. Principled Pragmatism

Let's face it: The battle for diaper-hauling supremacy is raging in America.

In a time when four-dollar-per-gallon fuel is as common as soccer moms, the crossover SUV is the vehicle of choice for many practitioners of the domestic arts. Whether it's toddler toting or simple commuting, small utility vehicles frequently pull rank over midsize sedans because of their all-weather utility, flexible cargo space and superior visibility. And since 2008, the two best-selling compact SUVs in the country have been the Ford Escape and Honda CR-V.

So if you've got diapers to haul and need new wheels to haul them, the simultaneous redesign of these two crossovers is hugely significant. Despite their common goals, the 2013 Ford Escape and 2012 Honda CR-V take very different approaches. Which approach is better? That's what we're here to find out.

Different Strategy, Same Mission
Ford's strategy for the Escape includes a choice of three different four-cylinder engines: two of them direct-injected and turbocharged and one normally aspirated, all of which are mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. They all drive the front wheels but all-wheel drive is optional. Our Escape tester was a top-of-the-line Titanium version with all-wheel drive, which comes standard with the most powerful engine, a turbocharged 2.0-liter that cranks out 231 horsepower and 270 pound-feet of torque.

Honda's CR-V follows a more traditional formula under the hood. Only one engine is available — a 2.4-liter four-cylinder that produces 185 hp and 163 lb-ft of torque. It relies on port fuel injection, atmospheric aspiration and a five-speed automatic transmission to drive the front wheels. All-wheel drive is available with every trim level and — following Honda's usual price structure — navigation is the only other option.

We tested fully loaded versions of each vehicle. With the Escape that meant $3,185 in options on top of the Titanium's base price of $32,945 for a final price of $36,130. There are no such add-ons for the CR-V, so our EX-L with navigation rang in at $30,825.

Sizing Them Up
Dimensionally it's clear these two utes are targeting the same clientele. Only 0.2 inch separates their overall length while the 2013 Ford Escape is 0.8 inch wider and 1.2 inches taller. Its 105.9-inch wheelbase is also marginally longer than the CR-V's 103.1-inch wheelbase.

Once inside, however, Honda pulls a clever switcheroo by producing more interior space from slightly smaller exterior dimensions. Partially this is thanks to the Escape's rising waistline and sloping roof line, which look great but compromise overall roominess. Despite producing additional volume, the CR-V's load-in-the-shorts styling won it few fans.

Speaking of loaded shorts, the CR-V's physics-defying interior is also better for installing rear-facing infant seats, which consume a disproportionate amount of space. With the driver seat set to accommodate a 5-foot-9-inch driver, the Escape's seatback rested against the front of an infant seat. In the CR-V there was a small space left over between the seatback and infant seat.

A quick look at each SUV's cargo area hints at what the SAE's objective measures verify: The Honda is easily the better of the two when it comes to cargo volume. Although cargo room behind the CR-V's second row is only 2.9 cubic feet more than the Escape, it measures larger in every single dimension. Drop the seats and the CR-V's advantage continues (68.1 cubic feet vs. 70.9).

Dropping those seats is significantly easier in the Honda, too. It can be accomplished from the cargo area by pulling a handle on either side. The Escape's seats fold completely flat, but the CR-V's fold flat enough to minimize the compromise in utility. Liftover heights, at 27 inches for the CR-V and 27.5 inches for the Escape, are similarly low.

Jump In, Look Around
Inside, the Ford looks more modern than the new-but-still-familiar Honda design. We found the driver seat in both amply comfortable, but the CR-V's greater sense of space is undeniable. More than one tester commented on the CR-V's roominess, while others noted the Escape's more confined interior space.

Honda's use of space remains unparalleled when it comes to small-item storage, too. There's unexpected volume in the center console that stretches the length of the CR-V's seat bottoms and is nearly as deep as the seats are tall. There's also a perfectly flat floor in the backseat, while the Escape's foot room is invaded by a center hump.

Ford regains some ground by installing center-mounted HVAC vents for the rear passengers — a comfort feature kids in back will certainly appreciate.

Feature Central
There's no ignoring the fact that the Escape's cabin reeks of genuine technological innovation, while the 2012 Honda CR-V packs its features into a familiar but dated-looking package.

Both SUVs have dual-zone climate control, front seat heaters, navigation systems with traffic data, rearview cameras and sunroofs. The Escape adds a self-parking feature, blind-spot monitoring, keyless entry/start, HID headlamps and 19-inch wheels (the CR-V has 17s).

The Escape's power-operated tailgate also opens via the key fob, a button on the liftgate or by passing your foot underneath the rear bumper when the key fob is in your pocket — a feature that is undeniably useful for perpetually full-handed mothers.

Also worth noting is the fact that the Escape's MyFord Touch user interface for the phone, climate, audio and navigation system doesn't use the infuriatingly ineffective touchpad buttons found in the larger Explorer. Both SUVs were also relatively easy to pair with our smartphone and managed to remember it every time we climbed inside.

Punch It, Mommy
It's worth noting that the 2013 Ford Escape, despite being nearly identical in size to the 2012 Honda CR-V, is 361 pounds heavier. That's a considerable difference for a small SUV, yet there's a promptness to the Escape's responses that is sorely lacking in the CR-V.

This is largely due to its significant power advantage, but gearing and transmission calibrations also play a role. Fourth and 5th gears in the CR-V are overdrive ratios and it seeks them out often to maximize mileage. Not since driving the GMC Terrain have we witnessed such a profound case of upshiftitis.

The Escape, blessed with one additional cog in its transmission and sufficiently motivational torque, is neither confused nor reluctant when its throttle is opened. It just goes. Engine braking is more easily accessible than in the Honda, which might seem like a small thing until you descend a steep hill in both. What's more, if we had to perform light towing, the Escape's 3,500-pound tow rating makes it an easy choice, as the CR-V is only rated to tow 1,500 pounds.

When it comes to objective measures of acceleration the Escape mops the floor with the CR-V. Sixty miles per hour arrives in 7.4 seconds (7.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as at a drag strip) in the Escape. That milestone requires 9.4 seconds (9.1 seconds with rollout) in the CR-V. The Escape's 15.5-second quarter-mile time at 87.5 mph is a full 1.3 seconds and 4.5 mph quicker than the CR-V's 16.8-second pass at 83 mph.

Both SUVs utilize electric-assist steering but the Ford's ratio is quicker, which partially explains its snappier responses. Handling tests, unsurprisingly, fell in favor of the Ford's quicker reactions. It circled the skid pad at 0.82g — significantly better than the CR-V's 0.76g. At 62 mph it also slalomed faster than the CR-V (60.7 mph). Some 124 feet were required to stop the Escape from 60 mph — 5 feet shorter than the CR-V.

Efficiency Matters
It's possible you've heard the one about there being no free lunch. It's never been truer than in the power/fuel consumption compromise we observed in this test. According to the EPA, the Escape's fuel mileage ratings (21 city/28 highway mpg) are slightly lower than the CR-V's 22 city/30 highway mpg.

Forget that for a moment, because in the real world, the world where the Escape's responsive turbocharged engine makes 107 lb-ft more torque than the Honda's engine, your mileage will vary. Ours certainly did.

During 1,328 miles of mixed driving we observed 20.5 mpg in the Escape. Driven largely on the same roads during the same period of time by the same drivers, the CR-V delivered 27.7 mpg over 1,520 miles. It's a difference that's hard to ignore.

Certainly the 231-hp Ford's advantage in response, drivability and outright speed is nice to have and we certainly enjoy its capabilities. But that kind of performance isn't mission-critical for most families. Fuel economy, however, is at the top of the list. That's probably why Ford offers two smaller, more efficient engines in the Escape, including the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine, which Ford expects to be the crossover's volume engine. Of course with this smaller 173-hp power plant, the Escape acceleration isn't as brisk, but its fuel-efficiency ratings are more in line with the Honda's and in some cases better. Still, in this contest, the Escape was clearly out mpg'd.

The Take-Away
Here 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.

So if you're practicing the domestic arts, the 2012 Honda CR-V is the diaper hauler you'll likely prefer as a partner.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-v/2012/2013-ford-escape-vs-2012-honda-cr-v-comparison-test.html     


, , , , , , , ,

Honda Cars : Cars.com Midsize SUV Shootout; 2012 Honda CRV wins.... | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 7:28 AM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape

A quick reminder on the judges:
  • David Thomas, managing editor, Cars.com
  • Bill Jackson, senior editor, Cars.com
  • Jennifer Geiger, editor, Cars.com
  • Fred Meier, automotive editor, USA Today
  • Brian Robinson, producer, "MotorWeek"
  • Nicholas and Erin Ravelingeen, parents of two who are eager to replace their 2001 Chevrolet Tracker
Here's how the score broke down: 75% of the total was based on the experts' scores; 15% from the family's scores; and 10% was based on fuel economy. To help you make your own comparisons of these SUVs, we’ve pulled together a list of what you get for $25,000.
It was evident when the smoke cleared that all six of these compact SUVs were strong contenders, each in its own way. With a firm $25,000 price point, consumers could get many useful features, but no one SUV had all of them. The top three finishers were extremely close in scores, which is a testament to how hard it was to pick a winner in this class. If you're in the market for a compact SUV, focus on your top concerns, and certainly one of these will work for you.
No. 6 2013 Ford Escape, 693.5 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Ford Escape)

What they liked: Even though the Escape came with fewer features than its competitors (our broker got us a no-frills base version, but we couldn't have gotten a different engine without topping our $25,000 maximum price), as a driving machine, it won over more than a few of our reviewers.

"The Escape's 2.5-liter feels spirited from a stop and has plenty of midrange punch," Geiger said. Jackson agreed: "The Escape excels in the vehicle dynamics category — the combination of ride, handling and acceleration — by managing to feel both composed and relaxed." Now, the new Escape ditches the pickup-truck look and feel of the previous generation, and that "unique" look (as Robinson said) appealed to our family testers, too.
"I like this shape much more than the old one." Erin said. "The old one wasn't even a contender because of the shape." One area of concern for several judges was the look of the second-row seats, but Meier discovered that "the thin-looking rear seat has a reclining back, and it is surprisingly comfy and roomy for two." In addition, Thomas noted that the "the cargo area is quite large with a low load floor."

What they didn't: Here's where the no-frills come to roost. The "2.5-liter engine [is] not nearly as nice as the available EcoBoost engines," Robinson said, but he added: "To get the Escape that I would actually want to own, I'd be pushing 30 grand, and at that point, I'm looking at bigger vehicles."

For Geiger, "the cabin is a disappointment: large, uneven panel gaps are obvious; hard plastic surfaces abound; and chintzy fabric makes the seats feel and look budget-grade." As usual, our Shootouts are about families and she noted a big fail in the second row: "There are no rear cupholders (except for the door-panel cubbies) and there's only one seatback pocket." Meier agreed. "There's just not enough useful storage for this segment." Clever underfoot storage in rear seats can't make up for the tiny console bin, lack of cubbies."
For Thomas, his biggest complaint was one we're really feeling in a steamy Midwestern summer. "Someone will have to walk me through how the air-conditioning vents work. They don't shoot air in the direction you think when adjusting them, and there are two above the HVAC controls that shoot air only toward your lap. I had a hard time getting comfortable on the longest driving portions of my test." Meier felt his own pain in a sensitive location: "The front seats are not rump-worthy for a long drive."

The verdict: "The base model is a black-plastic austerity plan," Meier said. "You have to pay more to get the real redesign, including new state-of-the-art engines."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.4 mpg combined (the second lowest mpg tested).
  • 68.1 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.3 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the second highest amount of combined cargo space in comparison)
  • Auxiliary input for audio system
  • Reclining second row
  • Only vehicle tested with wheel covers
  • Only vehicle tested without Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity
  • Floor storage compartment in second row
  • No safety data available from NHTSA or IIHS yet
2013 Ford Escape Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $23,295
Monthly payment: $479.16*
Cheapest car in Shootout

Find a 2013 Ford Escape near you
No. 5 2012 Hyundai Tucson, 721.5 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Hyundai Tucson)

What they liked: Clearly, all of the judges enjoyed how much they got for 25 grand. "Great value," Geiger said. "At this price point, we were able to get some pretty nice features: heated leather seats, a power driver's seat, hill descent control and satellite radio." "The price starts under 20 grand, and by the time you get to 25, you've got a ton of features for not a lot of price," Robinson added. "Amazingly well-dressed for the price," Meier noted. "It delivers on Hyundai's reputation for value for your bucks."

Using those features was a little easier for Thomas in the Tucson: "Give me the Tucson's straightforward tech over the Mazda's touch-screen any day. Scrolling through iPod playlists, synching your phone and making calls was intuitive and natural."
Of course, part of the equation is the driving. "The Tucson springs away from stoplights and has decent passing power," Jackson said. "Handling was top-notch in the Tucson," Thomas said. "It was one of the few crossovers that I could take at full speed through tight turns. For the family, with its 11-year-old SUV, the SUVs in this Shootout were revelations, and the Tucson was no exception.
"This one and the Mazda never would have made it" onto their shopping list. "This really feels beautiful," Nick said. "I'm really surprised by this car," Erin added. The heated leather seats were something "we didn't think we could get at this price," Erin said.

What they didn't: Where the family saw beauty in the Tucson's design, Robinson saw "ugly exterior styling." Many of the experts' complaints revolved around a slew of issues.

"Some of the controls feel cheep and light," Jackson said. "Road noise and tire roar in the Tucson are hard to ignore, making it one of the loudest SUVs in the class," Geiger said. "There's no hiding the fact the cargo area is small," Thomas said, a view that Robinson shared. Thomas continued: "It's too small for my family dog — let alone what we pack for a road trip — and it has a really high load-in height." For Meier, the "lack of visibility at the rear corners makes you see the value of backup and blind spot warning systems."

The verdict:
"The Tucson remains an excellent option in the class," Thomas notes, "but the class has gotten much tougher very quickly."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.6 mpg.
  • Heated leather seats (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Most-expensive vehicle of the Shootout
  • 55.8 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 25.7 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (the smallest cargo area behind the second row amongst the competitors)
  • Roof rack
  • Five-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Kia for the longest warranty)
  • Power driver's seat
  • Satellite radio
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Hyundai Tucson Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,820
Monthly payment: $531.10*
Difference from cheapest car: $51.94 a month

Find a 2012 Hyundai Tucson near you
No. 4 2012 Chevrolet Equinox, 740 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Chevrolet Equinox)

What they liked:
"Being the biggest one in the group, obviously there's lots of cargo space, but even more importantly, there's lots of small-item storage up front as well," Robinson noted. "The interior has an 'almost-premium' feel."

Jackson, a triathlete, picked up on that the Equinox "was the only SUV where I felt I could take a road trip in the second row thanks to the sliding rear seats.There's a huge second row and a large cargo area, too; most SUVs in this class make you choose one or the other." Meier called that sliding second row a "why can't do they do it all?" feature.
For Geiger, the Latch anchors were a winning point for the Equinox. "They rank among the best I've ever used. They're completely exposed and have lots of clearance around them — hooking up a child-safety seat is a breeze."

What they didn't: The driving experience lagged its competitors. "This powertrain needs to go to finishing school," Geiger said. "It's slow, loud and the transmission's shifts are clunky and oddly timed." Robinson concurred: "The engine, while adequate in power, has a very rough feel to it." The family had a hard time with the concept of an Eco button. "When would you use that?" they asked. The idea that the transmission adjusted electronically for better fuel economy didn't impress them.

It wasn't all about the engine, though. "On the highway the Chevy was definitely the loudest of the six with lots of road noise," Thomas said. "The seats did not provide enough support, especially for my thighs," Jackson found. And the stereo sent Meier off on a mini-rant. "The Equinox had an unexpectedly good audio with subwoofer at this price — and then there's no USB port for your iPod! Chevy should fire the bean counter whose cost-cutting will turn off those younger buyers you could have wooed with the good sound," he said. "Worse, putting a white plate in the black console reminds you where the USB would have been if you'd just paid more."

The verdict: "The Equinox is bigger than the rest of these SUVs, so it's very roomy inside, and it has one of the best rides of the group," Robinson said. "It's a great overall package that could just use a little more refinement in the powertrain."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 27.1 mpg combined (the lowest mpg tested)
  • 63.7 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 31.5 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
  • Power height adjustment for driver's seat
  • Sliding, reclining second-row seat
2012 Chevy Equinox Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,355
Monthly payment: $500.97*
Difference from cheapest car: $21.81 a month

Find a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox near you
No. 3 2012 Kia Sportage, 774 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Kia Sportage)

What they liked: "Getting a full navigation system with an upgraded stereo at a price in the middle of our range was a huge win for Kia," Thomas said. "Plus, the stereo sounded better than the rest, too."

Erin also liked the nav system: "It feels really high-end." That wasn't the only advantage. "The Sportage definitely has an attitude," Geiger said. "Its exterior styling breaks the compact-SUV mold; it's the edgiest-looking one of the bunch.  It also gets some brownie points in the storage department. A deep center console, coupled with under-floor storage with separate bins in the cargo area, mean there are plenty of places to stash stuff."
"The Sportage has the crisp handling of the mechanically similar Hyundai Tucson," Meier said, "but its good ride and quiet interior are amazingly better than its stablemate." Jackson also liked its "immediate engine response," and the family raved about its spaciousness. "It's really roomy," Nick said after feeling cramped in the Tucson.

What they didn't: While some experts liked the aggressive styling, "that stylish high belt line may make shorter folks claustrophobic," Meier said, "and they sure won't be resting an elbow on the window sill." He also pointed out that the rakish roof leads to "very limited rear sightlines, and that means you'll need that backup camera and you'll wish for a blind spot alert system."

For Robinson, "the interior quality doesn't seem on par with most recent Kias." "Like the Tucson, the cargo area is too small with a very high load floor," Thomas said. 
And that nav system that everyone raved about? "You've got a great nav system and you install it at an angle leaning backward toward the windshield? That leads to a lot of glare, and when it's sunny out, it is very hard to read the screen," Thomas said.

The verdict: "The sticker price and features wowed me, the family and likely other shoppers. If cargo space isn't a concern, the Sportage will be hard to ignore, Thomas said.

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 22/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 28.5 mpg combined
  • Navigation system (only one equipped as-tested)
  • 54.6 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 26.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (least amount of maximum cargo space in Shootout)
  • Heated side mirrors
  • Cooling glove box (Only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Backup camera
  • 5-year/60,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty (tied with Hyundai for longest warranty)
  • Satellite radio
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Kia Sportage Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,575
Monthly payment: $505.49*
Difference from cheapest car: $26.33 a month

Find a 2012 Kia Sportage near you
No. 2 2013 Mazda CX-5, 784 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2013 Mazda CX-5)

What they liked: The CX-5 is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker has been using for the last five years.
“More than one person has described the CX-5 as ‘cute,’ ” Jackson said, even though this is the first Mazda to shed the “big grin” design language the automaker had been using for the last five years. “The interior has the richest look of any in our test,” he continued. “I kept thinking that we had to be in a model that didn’t meet our price level; it looked so nice.” But meet our price limit it did, a feat that Geiger also praised. “Low base prices and high fuel economy mean this car should appeal to penny-pinchers, and lots of features for the price (blind spot warning, backup camera and powerdriver seat) mean they’re getting a good value,” she said.

“I really like it,” Erin said about the interior. “It’s really streamlined but in a good way,” she said. Meier praised the “airy, spacious feel inside with classy trim and seat cloth and the straightforward gauges and controls,” he said. “You expect classy interiors from Mazda and CX-5 doesn't disappoint.”

Beyond that, Geiger favored the second row. “The backseat folds in a 40/20/40 split, which is useful for hauling different combinations of people and cargo. The seats also fold flat with ease, thanks to three cargo-area handles.” One of the reasons the CX-5 scored so high was its outstanding fuel economy. It was more than 2 mpg ahead of its closest competitor.

What they didn't: Part of that great fuel economy was because of, shall we say, reserved acceleration. Looking at the judges' scores, this category likely kept it from the top spot. "The CX-5's 2.0-liter engine has adequate pep from a stop, but it's on the loud side and takes awhile to gather steam," Geiger noted. "That famed Zoom-Zoom wasn't there in the handling department," Thomas said. "While it topped the CR-V and Equinox in that regard, the Escape, Tucson and Sportage all out-cornered it." Worse, Meier said: "The engine's thin power undercuts confidence in demanding situations."

The CX-5's new stereo setup also raised ire. "The info screen looks outdated, and there's a navigation button even though there's no [factory installed] nav," Robinson said.
Compared to the others in the Shootout, the CX-5's Latch anchors weren't super accessible. There wasn't a lot of clearance around the anchors, so the car seat's Latch connector has to be jammed in for it to hook on.
One big point of contention: the clock. The family and a couple of judges could not understand why the clock was placed where it was, and while they all liked the look and layout of the dashboard, they thought the air-conditioning controls and the clock felt as if they were out of a different time period than the rest of the car. "It looks basic, basic, basic," Erin said. She also thought the center armrest was "unusably too low; actually, it's too far back and too low." Husband Nick was not as wowed as the expert judges. "I hate it. I don't know why!"

The verdict: "Mazda really needs the CX-5 to be a winner, and it's poised to be," Geiger said. "The CX-5 should appeal to a wide audience with eye-catching styling, a quality interior, plenty of convenience features and excellent-for-the-class fuel economy."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 26/32 mpg city/highway; we observed 32.8 mpg combined (highest mpg tested)
  • 65.4 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 34.1 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats
  • Power driver's seat 
  • 5.8-inch color LCD display with backup camera
  • HD Radio and satellite radio
  • Blind spot warning system (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2013 Mazda CX-5 Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $24,690
Monthly payment: $507.86*
Difference from cheapest car: $28.70 a month

Find a 2013 Mazda CX-5 near you
And the winner is...

No. 1 2012 Honda CR-V, 809 Points
(See the scorecard, the Monroney sticker or research the 2012 Honda CR-V)

What they liked: Perhaps the greatest compliment to be paid to our winner is that everything that came in our tester was standard for the trim level, and the combination of those features really pleased our judges.

"Even just equipped with the standard tech features, the CR-V shined," Thomas said. "The Bluetooth and USB integration works well with a vibrant color display that's easy to read, and the stereo was one of my favorites." "The CR-V is loaded with convenience features that come standard," Geiger said. "Three of my favorites are the always-helpful backup camera, the cavernous center console box and the easy fold-flat seats with cargo-area release handles. Bonus: This was the only vehicle with a sunroof at this price point." Robinson loved the "great ergonomics and the CR-V's best interior layout."
Perhaps betraying that they haven't been in the market since 2001, Erin and Nick were "totally amazed" by the conversation mirror (most commonly found in minivans) that lets parents check up on kids in the second row. "Mason, look! Mom can see you!" But that wasn't the only thing they liked about the Honda.
They had barely begun their test drive when Erin exclaimed, "It drives like a dream." She also liked the CR-V's size: "This just feels like a car, and the Chevy feels big," she said, with "big" referring to a larger SUV.

What they didn't: The CR-V is one of the totally redesigned SUVs in this contest, but not everyone thought the Honda had improved on its looks. "The rear styling is pretty bad," Jackson said. "It's got the biggest butt of any of the SUVs here. Actually, the front styling ain't so hot, either."

But it's not all about looks. "Handling is where the CR-V showed some chinks in the armor," Thomas said. "When taking corners, driver and passengers leaned more in the Honda than the other contenders." Geiger also had some issues with the driving. "Eco mode is a double-edged sword: I appreciate the potential fuel savings, but the system alters the throttle response and delays shifts points so the CR-V seems lazy," she said.
While many praised the features included in the price tag, Robinson said the CR-V "still trails many others in technological and convenience features such as blind spot monitoring systems, push-button start, etc." Finally, Thomas was bugged by one little annoyance: "Considering how many great cubbies there are around the cabin, I would really like a better place to put my smartphone."

The verdict: "The Honda CR-V is one of the most well-rounded vehicles in this segment. It's a comfortable cruiser with a solid powertrain, a compliant ride and plenty of features," Geiger said. "The brand's history of strong reliability helps tip the scale."

Key Features
  • EPA-estimated 23/31 mpg city/highway; we observed 30.3 mpg combined (the second best mpg tested)
  • 70.9 cubic feet of maximum cargo space; 37.2 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats (largest cargo area in competition)
  • Second-most expensive vehicle of the comparison test
  • Sunroof (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • Backup camera
  • Pandora Internet radio (only vehicle tested with feature)
  • IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2012
2012 Honda CR-V Payment Facts
MSRP with destination fee: $25,425
Monthly payment: $522.98*
Difference from cheapest car: $43.82 a month

Find a 2012 Honda CR-V near you

*Monthly payment assumes good credit, no money down, 60-month loan, 5% interest and 9% sales tax.

Source;
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?referer=&year=New&section=SUV&story=25ksuvShootoutresult&subject=stories


, , , , , , , , , ,

Honda Cars : Road and Track: 2013 Ford Escape | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Unknown | 6:48 AM
2013 Ford Escape
2013 Ford Escape

Wow, is this ever an improvement over the current Escape, which I think is still very nice....

What was once the Vertrek concept will become the 2013 Ford Escape.
By Matt DeLorenzo

While this sporty crossover was introduced as the Vertrek concept at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, it’s assumed that the production version will have the more recognizable (and easier to pronounce) Escape nameplate.

The Vertrek styling influences represent a major change in crossover design at Ford. While the new Explorer has a tough truck look, the new Escape, taking its cues from the concept, promises to be sleeker and more wagon/carlike, something along the lines of a Honda CR-V.

Now our spies have captured an early development mule of the Vertrek/Escape, which is based on Ford’s Global C-platform that underpins the new Focus and Transit Connect as well as related crossovers sold in Europe as the C-Max and Kuga. Speaking of the Kuga, Ford uses some of that vehicle’s bodywork on the mule, since it is much sleeker than the current boxy Escape sheetmetal.

While this vehicle does not represent the final design of the 2013 Ford Escape, it does show us that testing well under way. We can see a large piece has been tacked onto the front clip, likely to make room for components related to turbocharging. At the rear, the fascia has been modified to make room for a new exhaust system.

The Escape will follow the industry trend of doing away with V-6 engines, instead sporting a 2.5-liter 4-cylinder for the base model and an Ecoboost 4-cylinder for the upmarket model. Also a possibility is a 1.6-liter turbocharged gasoline engine as a fuel-economy leader, plus a 2.0-liter turbodiesel currently being developed primarily for Europe.

Source;
http://www.roadandtrack.com/future-cars/spy-photos/spied!-2013-ford-escape


, , , , , , , ,

2013 Ford Escape 2013 Ford Escape