GM Inside News Forum banner
41 - 60 of 134 Posts
dbfruth said:
I am not a Ford Guy but I would take the Escape any day! Much better looking IMO
As I said before, styling is subjective: to say one vehicle is 'without a doubt, superior in all regards' is a little bit of a tough statement, because we all prefer different things.

From what I gather, a lot of men prefer the more "rugged", truck-like look of the Escape, whereas fewer men prefer the look of the new CR-V.

Personally, I prefer the CR-V, but only because I'm not exactly pleased with what Ford has been doing lately, and if I just don't think its as competative.
 
FLA-USA said:
Honda has nailed what America wants today: a tall wagon with the footprint of an Accord, FWD/AWD, lighter weight, good mileage, decent pickup (V6 not a necessity), refinement, quality, and lots of safety features built-in. Oh, and price it right.:yup:
The CR-V is based on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform.
 
wescoent said:
Refinement may be an issue, but I think a lot of it has to do with the powertrain. Also, no SUV in this class has particularly good interior quality, due to the low price point. I've compared the Escape, CRV, and RAV4 side by side, and while the Escape isn't anything spectacular, the CRV and RAV4 have just as much cheapo material inside. Essentially, this class of SUV is a jacked up, reskinned, and more expensive compact car. Right now, the Escape's origins lie in the late 1990's Mazda 626, as opposed to the excellent Focus. The Ford Kuga set to debut will be coming to the United States with the C2 Focus in 2011, which will rectify this situation.
I've compared the Escape to all competitors also, and what I'll say is that you don't have to have the best materials, but you use what you have and make the interior design look of a high level, like the CR-V which successfully accomplishes this. If you use cheaper materials, fine, but that shouldn't bring the level of design down. I wouldn't call this a particularly low price point, maybe for SUV's, but I expect more looks wise (interior) especially for an all-new vehicle. The appearance of the interior is more important to me than materials used. So when I say something like the overall feel of the interior was cheap, I don't mean touching the dash, I mean I felt like I was in an interior I'd expect in a car costing half as much, or 15k if you know what I mean. Little things like exposed screws and tracks, could easily be fixed and help a buyer feel like they're not getting less for their dollars.

Getting away from dash design and switchgear, which aren't among my highest complaints, seat comfort material and comfort needs to be taken more seriously with the automakers. My Civic has more pleasant and comfortable feeling seats than the Escape. Are the seats in the Escape the same as the previous version?
 
FLA-USA said:
I remember when the 2007 CR-V had just come out, there were all these predictions :blah: :

1. Ugly front... will never sell.
2. What??!! No V6? Are they on crack?... will never sell.
3. No third seat?!!... will never sell.
4. Side profile too curved... will never sell.

Well, despite all the hand-wringing, Honda hit the nail on the head... again.

I also remember everyone saying only previous Honda owners would buy a new CR-V. Wrong again.

Honda has nailed what America wants today: a tall wagon with the footprint of an Accord, FWD/AWD, lighter weight, good mileage, decent pickup (V6 not a necessity), refinement, quality, and lots of safety features built-in. Oh, and price it right.

I will guarantee you Honda is making a ton off the CR-V... no incentives, lots of sales, and minute fleet sales (CR-V resale values are almost unreal... nice LM 1997's are still around $10K!). The perfect combo.

While the Escape/Mariner are close to the CR-V in overall sales, their fleet numbers are large. Also, a neighbor down the street has a new Mariner (real nice '08 silver-blue), and while it looks decent, it sounds like a tractor when it accelerates down the street. I can only imagine how that thing will be in a few years.

I'll bet Honda doesn't let the CR-V wither on the vine without updates/refinements/new technologies in the coming years- like some others we know. :ponder:

They nurture their models (and brand).:yup:
The posts about the CRV reflect a common perceptional error on many auto enthusiast websites and certainly, 'til now, in Detroit's decision rooms.

4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency

There is no more obvious trend over the last 20 years than that. Yes there was a surge in big V6/V8 trucks and SUV's but almost all the growth has been in 4c fuel efficient autos and now utility vehicles.

In 1985 there was about 10 million vehicles sold here, now it's about 15-16 million vehicles.

In 1985 there was only a handful of 4c Honda's and Toyota's being sold here, now....
400K Camrys
375K Accords
325K Corollas
300K Civics
200K Altimas
150K Prius'
Focus, Escape, Cobalt, Sentra, Elantra, Scion, Fit, RAV, CRV, HHR, PT Cruisers, Mazdas.

The market has been screaming for 20 yrs what it wants. And voting with it's wallet.
 
ericmvest said:
The CR-V is based on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform.
:doh:

Even though I knew it is based on the Civic, I thought it had grown in length to about 185ish inches. I was wrong. It is just under 179 inches.

That makes it even more desirable, since it packs the interior room of an Accord tall wagon in under 180 inches. It makes it more maneuverable, easier to park, and easier to fit in a garage... with room to spare. No wonder people love it.

The Pilot has the footprint of an Accord... but has lots more room.
 
PhishPhood said:
The posts about the CRV reflect a common perceptional error on many auto enthusiast websites and certainly, 'til now, in Detroit's decision rooms.

4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency

There is no more obvious trend over the last 20 years than that. Yes there was a surge in big V6/V8 trucks and SUV's but almost all the growth has been in 4c fuel efficient autos and now utility vehicles.

In 1985 there was about 10 million vehicles sold here, now it's about 15-16 million vehicles.

In 1985 there was only a handful of 4c Honda's and Toyota's being sold here, now....
400K Camrys
375K Accords
325K Corollas
300K Civics
200K Altimas
150K Prius'
Focus, Escape, Cobalt, Sentra, Elantra, Scion, Fit, RAV, CRV, HHR, PT Cruisers, Mazdas.

The market has been screaming for 20 yrs what it wants. And voting with it's wallet.
Absolutely... I'll bet there are tons of people who walked in to drive a Camry/Accord/CR-V/Rav4/HHR/PT etc. and said to the salesperson: "I've had V6s and V8s all my life, and no stinkin' 4 banger is gonna be any good!". Then after a test drive, they walk away impressed, and head into the showroom to buy one.

Just think of all the old people brought up driving only V8s, only to now be driving 4cyl. Camrys.

Detroit had better wake up to that fact.:yup:
 
PhishPhood said:
The posts about the CRV reflect a common perceptional error on many auto enthusiast websites and certainly, 'til now, in Detroit's decision rooms.

4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency

There is no more obvious trend over the last 20 years than that. Yes there was a surge in big V6/V8 trucks and SUV's but almost all the growth has been in 4c fuel efficient autos and now utility vehicles.

In 1985 there was about 10 million vehicles sold here, now it's about 15-16 million vehicles.

In 1985 there was only a handful of 4c Honda's and Toyota's being sold here, now....
400K Camrys
375K Accords
325K Corollas
300K Civics
200K Altimas
150K Prius'
Focus, Escape, Cobalt, Sentra, Elantra, Scion, Fit, RAV, CRV, HHR, PT Cruisers, Mazdas.

The market has been screaming for 20 yrs what it wants. And voting with it's wallet.
Hmmm, yet another useful post.

It really concerns me that some GM fans are knocking the CR-V for what I see as superficial concerns. C'mon, an ugly front end? Is this the best criticism that can be batted at the CR-V? Don't get me wrong, I don't anticipate ever purchasing a CR-V, but I can definitely recognize it's spot-on target for its market... and [relatively unincentivized] retail sales rightfully reflect that.

I hope GM isn't adopting other people's mindsets when approaching its competitors. There's nothing at all wrong with acknowledging a strong competing product, studying the hell out of it, and one-upping the competition. This denial and cheap-shotting will do nothing to improve Detroit's position.
 
ericmvest said:
Far superior in styling?? That statement is preposterous.
IMO the CR-V has an overall pleasing shape that's easy on the eyes. it's not meant to appeal necessarily to the truck crowd, so it's curvy. it's got a slight bit of aggressiveness to the front with the large grill above the front bumper. the side has a nice sweeping line from the windshield header across the top and down to the beltline. rather than just looking like 2 boxes schlepped together, it looks like someone actually took some time to design a unique exterior for it. the Escape mostly looks like the box it came in with very little imagination or effort taken to design a unique looking CUV.
 
Minnesota Nice said:
As I said before, styling is subjective: to say one vehicle is 'without a doubt, superior in all regards' is a little bit of a tough statement, because we all prefer different things.

From what I gather, a lot of men prefer the more "rugged", truck-like look of the Escape, whereas fewer men prefer the look of the new CR-V.
I agree with you that styling is subjective and that the Honda CR-V is a competent vehicle. I think MotorWeek gave it their top pick for small SUV this year. The front end styling is a deal breaker for me, though. I had a similar issue with the first generation Subaru B-9 Tribeca. I am sure it was a competent vehicle, but the front end styling, in my opinion, was terrible.
 
PhishPhood said:
The posts about the CRV reflect a common perceptional error on many auto enthusiast websites and certainly, 'til now, in Detroit's decision rooms.

4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency

There is no more obvious trend over the last 20 years than that. Yes there was a surge in big V6/V8 trucks and SUV's but almost all the growth has been in 4c fuel efficient autos and now utility vehicles.

In 1985 there was about 10 million vehicles sold here, now it's about 15-16 million vehicles.

In 1985 there was only a handful of 4c Honda's and Toyota's being sold here, now....
400K Camrys
375K Accords
325K Corollas
300K Civics
200K Altimas
150K Prius'
Focus, Escape, Cobalt, Sentra, Elantra, Scion, Fit, RAV, CRV, HHR, PT Cruisers, Mazdas.

The market has been screaming for 20 yrs what it wants. And voting with it's wallet.
Growing up, we had a 1983 Buick LeSabre and later a 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood. They had about 5.0 and 4.1 liter V8s, respectively. I don't remember the official output for the Buick, but it was below 175 horsepower. The Cadillac was rated at 125. Both cars weighed around 4000 pounds, and both were perfectly fine to drive.

It's tempting to mock 4-cylinders today, but a 4-banger in a 3200 pound car today gives you better acceleration than a 1980s Cadillac. It's no wonder millions of buyers are satisfied with a 4-cylinder.

[EDIT] On the top end, it makes sense for the Big Three to keep fighting the horsepower wars. But 4-cylinders are no longer the sole domain of the very poor or frugal.
 
Honda made an excellent call not growing the CRV and adding a V6. They kept the gas mileage up and improved the car overall.

The Theta's lost gas mileage and offer no improvements in the interior: The '08 looks exactly like the '05: Same poor plastic and cheap cloth.
Has GM thought of adding grab handles yet? Has the numb and unresponsive
steering been fixed yet?

The Suzuki 3.6L should help performance but nothing else has been improved.
I'm sure GM will bring in the 3.6L Sport version at over 30K. At that price, you'll at high end Rav4's and the new Highlander
 
The Civic Recreational Vehicle/Wagon is no great MPG'er and should not be considered anything but a station wagon. And of course it handles well, it is a car with a 2" lift in wagon form.

The world still needs Explorers and Trailblazers, though I don't know about Envoy's and definately not Aspens, Ascenders, and 97s. But remember, the Pilots and CRVs of the world exist because Honda and some of the other makes do not have the technological background or know-how to produce a real truck based utility vehicle. Don't forget that!

BTW I saw a new Vue FWD the other day, I actually do not like it at all, I prefer the old one; but it will sell well, it looks Japanese!
 
joey said:
Honda made an excellent call not growing the CRV and adding a V6. They kept the gas mileage up and improved the car overall.

The Theta's lost gas mileage and offer no improvements in the interior: The '08 looks exactly like the '05: Same poor plastic and cheap cloth.
Has GM thought of adding grab handles yet? Has the numb and unresponsive
steering been fixed yet?

The Suzuki 3.6L should help performance but nothing else has been improved.
I'm sure GM will bring in the 3.6L Sport version at over 30K. At that price, you'll at high end Rav4's and the new Highlander
Righttttt.... the "Suzuki" V6. Can't even give GM credit on one of it's own designs. Suzuki is using a GM V6, more specifically the Caddy V6 that has just recently trickled down to Pontiac, Chevy, and Saturn.
 
Re: Ford, Honda Cross Paths

mbukukanyau said:
How comes WSJ does not mention the Escape? The way these people do not mention, things like the Vue, Escape, Mariner, HHR, until the very end of the article. which are all indeed RV's. This is Bias at its best.

in this case, though, maybe the bias is OK.

i keep thinking that import buyers, out of the smidgen of US pride they must still harbor, will start to cringe when they hear "Toyota is #1 in the world" or "The CR-V sells more than the Ford Explorer" ....

so far, doesn't seem to have happened. but maybe one day it will help.
 
PhishPhood said:
The posts about the CRV reflect a common perceptional error on many auto enthusiast websites and certainly, 'til now, in Detroit's decision rooms.

4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency....4c fuel efficiency

There is no more obvious trend over the last 20 years than that. Yes there was a surge in big V6/V8 trucks and SUV's but almost all the growth has been in 4c fuel efficient autos and now utility vehicles.

In 1985 there was about 10 million vehicles sold here, now it's about 15-16 million vehicles.

In 1985 there was only a handful of 4c Honda's and Toyota's being sold here, now....
400K Camrys
375K Accords
325K Corollas
300K Civics
200K Altimas
150K Prius'
Focus, Escape, Cobalt, Sentra, Elantra, Scion, Fit, RAV, CRV, HHR, PT Cruisers, Mazdas.

The market has been screaming for 20 yrs what it wants. And voting with it's wallet.
And it looks like GM is finally listening. Seems that for the first time in my life - nearly 33 years - GM is finally bringing a competitive four cylinder sedan with a class leading transmission and interior. It is the 2008 Malibu LTZ. The problem is that this powertrain should have debuted in the 2007 Aura. It would have sold better than the Aura Greenline ever will.
 
GM-Joe said:
But remember, the Pilots and CRVs of the world exist because Honda and some of the other makes do not have the technological background or know-how to produce a real truck based utility vehicle. Don't forget that!
And the big three lack the technological background or know-how to produce unibody vehicles? Honda produces these vehicles because they sell, get great economy and because they can do it very well.

Why can't GM build a small suv that can compete with the CR-V? Or the Civic or Accord without weighing hundreds of pounds more while offering no distinct advantages? Honda seems to be a master at small unibodies.
 
yoblues said:
I swear it's the mid seventies again. GM is giving you BIG and the consumer is going small. 900 series, Lambda, Zeta, V8 Buicks, I hope a big GM crash is not comming again.
Yes and the new Vue, Sky, Solstice, Astra, New Aveo, New 9.3 and this is all within 18 months. Why is GM supposed to abandon all markets? It is time Some people get a real look outside there box. GM has made ground in the samller car market. Room for improvment yes. Gloom and Doom No! Torrent and Equinox lead sales in this segment for over a year if I am not mistaken. Honda gets a new CR-V (light years ahead of the old one) and we all get tears in our eyes and throw in the towel. Not so fast. The new VUE will give it all it wants and crush it in many categories. 23 mpg in a CR-V is not exactly shutting down any wells in the Middle East is it?

Look at the whole picture before passing judgment.
 
jeffdursty said:
23 mpg in a CR-V is not exactly shutting down any wells in the Middle East is it?
That would be with a lead foot. I can easily get 25mpg on the PDI test drive with a very green engine.

Most of our customers report 28-31 on the highway.
 
41 - 60 of 134 Posts