newbie in need of help - 04 escape v6 or 04 crv

**wildyudz124** · May 15th, 2009 05:33 AM

Hi guys.

Pardon me for being a newbie, I am not sure if this has already been discussed before, but I just wanted to ask for your expert advices and feedback as to what suv to buy. I plan on trading my 03 Lancer GLS for an SUV. Di na kasi magkasya gamit ng baby, etc.

But of course, I would like to consider all aspects such as look, feel, performance, etc. I would appreciate any help you guys can give.

Thanks.

**scharnhorst** · May 15th, 2009 06:38 AM

Hi sir!

For how many people are we looking here?

The chief complaint regarding the V6 escape is its thirst.

here's an old comparo: rav4 vs. crv vs. escape

just take note that this isn't the v6 escape, though.

We used to have a 2nd gen CRV. Had no complaints about it, except the relative thirst (6-8 km/li city driving).

btw, are you deadset on these two choices? there are probably going to be alot of suggestions as this thread grows

**wildyudz124** · May 15th, 2009 06:55 AM

Good morning!

I am looking at a family of 3 plus the yaya and a dog. hehe...i've been asking around, relatives, colleagues, friends and now through this forum since Ive had mixed reviews. Browsing the internet sites (both local and international), Escape seemed to be preferred than CRV. I guess in terms of just plain "legacy" and reputation, CRV seems to go ahead of Escape.

Nowadays, gas consumption is indeed a bog factor to consider. But if you eliminate that out of the equation, would CRV still be a better choice? I see a lot of CRVs on the streets. hence, my inclination to Escape. But I definitely would like to hear expert opinions through this forum.

Thank you for the reply. Appreciate it.

**niky** · May 15th, 2009 06:50 PM

In all things... ease of maintenance, fuel economy and utility, a CR-V is much better than a V6 Escape. The Escape is more fun to drive, but the incredible thirst of that big V6 doesn't justify its use as a family car. A toy maybe, but not a family car.

**renzo_d10** · May 15th, 2009 07:03 PM

CRV for me....I've heard that Ford Escape's a gas guzzler.....
And I think Escape has a higher maintainance cost than the CR-V.....of course, the good part in having an escape is the fact that you're driving a " FORD " not a " HONDA " or anything else.......but if the badge doesn't affect you....then go for the CR-V.....

IMO: I like honda better than the ford.....

Oh btw, sir/mam.....a maroon CR-V looks good, and even better if you put some bumper overriders, hood deflectors, carrier and of course a spoiler. :2thumbsup:

**tidus1203** · May 15th, 2009 08:33 PM

Errr... A Ford badge is not necessarily better than the Honda badge. Ask those Ford 2nd hand resellers what I mean.

And come on American cars have bad repus...

**renzo_d10** · May 15th, 2009 08:36 PM

Siguro for others mas better ang ford kaysa sa honda but for me, honda's better

**scharnhorst** · May 15th, 2009 09:48 PM

The CRV is really a no-frills car. Just do yourself a favor and change that stock kenwood headunit.

At medyo hindi pa ganun kataas ang pagtingin ng mga tao sa Ford vehicles dito sa pinas, kaya ambaba ng resale value.

**wildyudz124** · May 16th, 2009 04:02 AM

thanks everybody! Initially, I was concerned with looks and overall appeal. But reding your suggestions and comments, which are all valid, made me think more about my decision which unit to trade in my car for.

I will keep everyone updated.

Please continue to share your thoughts....

**niky** · May 16th, 2009 10:19 AM

A Ford badge is not necessarily worse than a Honda badge.

The Escape is based on the CD2 platform, which is derived from the Mazda 626. Most of the mechanicals are Japanese designed, but the engine itself is mostly American, with some tuning input from Mazda.

First run Escapes had issues. THe 2.0 was all fuel consumption and no power. And those tail-light clusters were prone to melting. But after first-run teething issues, later Escapes were generally okay... not up to the gold standard, but okay. The 2.3 is somewhat better in the power-economy equation. The 3.0 isn't great, by any standards, and is typically 4-6 km/l everywhere... but old CR-V 2.0 ATs were typically 4-7 km/l, too. There's no doubt that the CR-V will be more economical over the same route, and easier to care for (4 cylinders easier to maintain than 6), but harbor no preconceptions, a CR-V is not an economical car.