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

Here's a good read comparing two very good vehicles....

Baseless Brawn vs. Principled Pragmatism

By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor | Published Jul 16, 2012 

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 : Honda CR-V Wins Vehix Small SUV Comparison Test | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Really in depth comparison test, great read, I just put the basic's from the article, make sure you you read the full article....

1ST Place: 2011 Honda CR-V
Overall Score: 7.3 out of 10
Likes
-Comfortable seats
-Simple yet innovative interior packaging
-Lively driving character in urban environments
-Top quality and dependability ratings
-Holds its value over time
Dislikes
-Limited availability of technology features
-Accessing engine power means revving the engine
-Transmission regularly exercises its hunting permit
-Choppy highway ride
-We’re thinking, we’re thinking…
The Vehix View
Honda appeals more to the head than the heart with the 2011 CR-V, an utterly practical, extremely comfortable, exceptionally reliable, and genuinely fun-to-drive crossover SUV.

2nd Place: 2011 Chevrolet Equinox
Overall Score: 7.2 out of 10
Likes
-Styling
-Comfort
-Ride and handling
-Safety features and crash-test scores
-Impressive warranty coverage
Dislikes
-Fuel economy
-Powertrain refinement
-Confusing controls
-Visibility
-Narrow cargo area
The Vehix View
Thanks to a solid middle-of-the-road performance, the 2011 Chevrolet Equinox slips into 2nd place in our comparison test. All it really needs is a more fuel-efficient and refined engine, minor reconfiguration of the interior, and better quality scores to lead the pack.

3rd Place: 2011 Toyota RAV4
Overall Score: 7.1 out of 10
Likes
-Impeccable build quality
-Lots of fun to drive
-Simple controls and displays
-Roomy cargo area
-Impressive gas mileage
Dislikes
-Few frills, premium price
-Cheap interior materials
-Seat comfort, front and rear
-NHTSA crash-test results
-Silly cargo door with spare tire stuck to it
The Vehix View
The fun-to-drive Toyota RAV4 is due for a redesign, and we hope the next version features improved interior materials, better crash-test scores, and more comfortable seats. Toyota can ditch that rear cargo door, too.

4th Place: 2011 Hyundai Tucson
Overall Score: 6.8 out of 10
Likes
-Interior design, materials and layout
-Lots of technology for the price
-Engine, transmission, and fuel economy
-Killer warranty and assurance programs
-IIHS Top Safety Pick
Dislikes
-Front styling
-Rear-seat comfort
-Rear visibility
-Steering feel
-Ride quality
The Vehix View
With improvements in rear-seat comfort, steering, ride quality, and independent ratings for quality, reliability, and expected depreciation, the Tucson would dominate the competition.
Drawing Conclusions
It may sound trite to admit, but based on our four-vehicle comparison test, there’s no clear winner or loser among this group. Each of the CUVs we drove gives the consumer a compelling reason to purchase, and each one possesses a potential flaw that a consumer might find impossible to live with. Despite this, we’ve driven the miles, crunched the data, and determined which of these four is the best of the bunch.

The Hyundai Tucson (view photos) smells like a bargain, thanks to impressive features, a competitive sticker price, and an industry-leading warranty. Add a high-quality interior, a Top Safety Pick crash-test award, and a best-in-test real world fuel economy number, and we understand why it’s hard to fathom its fourth-place finish. The trouble with the Tucson is that it is a chore to drive. The steering requires constant correction and maintenance, the ride is busy and bouncy, and visibility to the rear is poor. Plus, rear seat occupants – especially those old enough to talk but not tall enough to see past the Tucson’s towering door panels – are likely to squawk about claustrophobia.

The Toyota RAV4 (view photos) is a popular choice because it is roomy and simple, delivering impressive gas mileage and build quality for a low price. But that low price is deceiving, because you’re not getting many frills, and the Toyota’s interior looks and feels the cheapest of the group. Seat comfort is merely adequate, the cargo door is unwieldy, and the NHTSA’s new battery of crash tests reveals potentially inadequate passenger protection in some types of accidents. Negatives aside, perhaps the most surprising thing about the RAV4 is that it is fun to drive. Most people think Toyotas are nothing more than sleeping aids on wheels. When it comes to this CUV, that’s definitely not the case.

The Chevy Equinox (view photos) offers a compelling blend of emotional and practical reasons for purchase, from its good looks and comfortable interior to its impressive warranty coverage and favorable crash-test scores. However, based on our driving we think the EPA’s fuel economy estimates for the unrefined four-cylinder powertrain are out of line with reality. Plus, it’s hard to see out of the Equinox, the controls are often a source of confusion, and the cargo space is almost too narrow to accommodate a full-size stroller. While there is certainly room for improvement, the Equinox is definitely worth investigation.

The Honda CR-V (view photos) is the small crossover that we would recommend to friends and family, because it makes life easier. Brimming with practicality, the lively little CR-V is deceptively roomy inside with very comfortable seats, innovative cargo and storage solutions, and simple controls. Add top quality and dependability ratings and the ability to hold its value over time, and the Honda CR-V makes a clear case for purchase. All Honda really needs to do is make Bluetooth standard across the board, and we can forgive the CR-V’s relatively minor flaws.

Source;
http://www.vehix.com/articles/reviews/small-suv-comparison-test/1