The Replacement Killers: Ford Escape XLT vs. Honda CR-V vs. Toyota RAV4
P1.3 million pesos may sound like a lot of money, but it certainly won’t buy as many dollars as it used to. As a consequence, it won’t buy you as much car as it used to either. Where you could once shoot for a 3-pointed star, nowadays, P1.3 million will buy you a filled-to-the-brim, full-spec Japanese midsize sedan: Camry, Cefiro, Accord or Galant. For those who still remember the days of P500,000 Galants and P750,000 Cefiros, they can’t seem to accept that any of these cars should cost a million bucks, let alone P1.3 million.
What’s the alternative then? Welcome to the soft roader market. Compact soft roaders are a more flexible, more exciting alternative to the midsize sedan. They are shorter in length, allowing them to dodge through traffic and squeeze into smaller parking spaces. They’re tall, allowing generous headroom, a good view of traffic, and high ground clearance. The reconfigurable cargo spaces allow all sorts of sports gear. We take the top of the line model from Ford, Honda, and Toyota to find out which one is the best alternative to the midsize sedan.
Acceleration and Braking
Our three contenders have a similar block of metal slung low under their hoods: aluminum-alloy 2-liter inline-4 engines with double overhead cams and 16 valves. Toyota adds its VVTi variable-valve timing to improve low-end response and high-end breathing, and comes up with 148 bhp and 192 Nm of torque to Ford’s 130 bhp / 183 Nm. Honda ups the ante further by adding variable lift to the variable-valve timing. The iVTEC is the most powerful on paper with 150 bhp and 194 Nm.
On the road, the Toyota is the best off the line, providing generous pulling power when starting from standstill, or from low revs. Where the RAV4 engine begins to growl and grumble at 5000 rpm, Honda’s iVTEC is just beginning to sing. Not that you have to wind up the CR-V just to get quick acceleration. Its excellent midrange and high-end response, from 2500 rpm up, means that slicing through traffic on the South Expressway is a breeze. With eight adults on board, the CR-V’s acceleration is brisk, even at 100 km/h, when we ask it to go even faster. The engine is silky smooth and quiet all the way to redline.
The Toyota gearbox is the most refined, with nearly imperceptible gear shifts. The Honda’s comes in a close second. It’s quick to downshift and is willing to hold gear all the way to redline, but there’s just a split-second of delay during upshifts.
The Escape, for its part, feels relaxed when cruising along the highway, but huffs and puffs when it comes to overtaking. There is sufficient torque somewhere in that engine block, but it needs some coaxing to bring it out. With the heavier Ford, 4000-5000 rpm is the sweet spot for overtaking, and we frequently had to floor the throttle to induce a downshift. At higher engine speeds, the Escape surges forward with gusto, but thanks to the on-off nature of the propulsion, passing maneuvers have to be given some thought, unlike in the other two. Since the manual version of the Escape provides quick in-gear acceleration, we have to conclude that the auto gearbox is the culprit here.
When it comes to stopping, the Escape plays its cards to win, despite its holding the poorer hand, rear drums versus the Japanese’s 4-wheel discs. The Ford’s pedal is on the soft side but the brakes are grippy. The RAV has overboosted brakes, clamping eye-poppingly at first, but after that initial grab, overall stopping power feels weak. The ABS is easy to provoke in the wet even during moderating braking at 40 km/h. The CR-V is the reverse: it suffers from a spongy brake pedal at first, but bites reassuringly if you press it hard. As with the other two cars, ABS and EBD are standard.
Steering and Handling
Belying their high stance and ground clearance, these three wagons are nimble machines. The RAV is the most fun to throw around corners. The steering effort is perfectly weighted, and there’s plenty of grip from the fat tires. As a result, it feels quick and confident when executing turns.
Handling runner-up is the Escape. The Ford’s steering has a weighty, sharp feel to it that thankfully translates to its road manners. It’s quick to react to steering inputs, especially near the center position, and feels firmly planted in all conditions. The Escape feels like a much bigger car when it’s going straight—it’s smooth and stable—and it hangs on to corners with determination.
The CR-V won’t call the highway on-ramp or twisty flyover its second homes; handling is adequate for traffic-light cornering but it resists fast, sweeping turns. Steering is responsive enough for lane-change maneuvers, but on long highway trips, keeping it pointed straight tires the hands. It’s quite easy to spin a front wheel when accelerating during a turn, such as highway merging. Turning quickly while braking in the CR-V is like yanking the tail of a sleeping Rottweiler: you might be able to get away with it, but it’s not recommended.
Ride and Cabin Comfort
The RAV’s handling superiority comes at a price: it gives the bumpiest ride. Need to detect potholes or road joints? Take the RAV. The firm ride is alleviated somewhat by the softly-padded driver’s chair. From there, you’ll see that it flaunts its sports car pretensions: silver trim, central tach, and the best steering wheel of the bunch. The adventurous trim continues to the bright blue carpeting, seat fabric and door panels, as well as the silver and exposed-screw look of the dashboard.
The RAV also provides the best driving position and perfect ergonomics. It’s nearly sports-car intimate, too: just enough for four adults. The rear passengers can recline and slide their seats in a 50-50 split, but even with the seats slid all the way back, the legroom is just enough for the average Asian man. Front visibility is excellent, with a clear view of the hood, but the rear view is hampered by the spare tire and rear headrests.
The CR-V’s cabin boasts of a flat floor throughout and loads of space. So much space that there’s room for a third row of seats. We recommend a maximum of seven in this car, in a 2+3+2 configuration. Our only complaint about that useful third row is its lack of seatbelts and locking hooks that stick out from the floor. The third row doesn’t lock when folded up, but the second row seats are easy to fold and tumble. What’s not easy about the second row is actually sitting in it. This bench is divisible by three but not by four, and the four seatbelts qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. Even if you’re alone on the second row, you will be squeezed into a space fit for Mini-me. Taller outboard passengers will find their heads near the door frame. The second row is higher than the first, allowing you to peer over the front headrests. Driver visibility is not as good, with the hood disappearing from view and the spare tire crowding the small rear window.
The all-black interior is not helped by the cheap looking plastics. It’s almost gloomy in here, saved by clever positioning of controls: the dash-mounted automatic gearlever and handbrake free up a lot of space and are fun to use. Storage spaces abound in the CR-V, from the large bins above and below the aircon knobs to the shelf above the glove box. They’re all rattle-free, even if you toss in some maracas. As for the other sources of noise, there’s bothersome tire howl at speed, but engine noise is well-suppressed.
For the best ride quality, the Escape wins by a mile. It absorbs humps, potholes, road joints, and even undulating sections of concrete. Nearly all unpleasant vibrations are filtered out by the MacPherson strut front / multilink rear suspension. We drove all three vehicles on one of the most jarring segments of pavement in Metro Manila: Paseo de Roxas between Makati Avenue and Gil Puyat. Where the RAV danced about uncomfortably and the CR-V vibrated slightly, the Escape simply glided through without complaint.
The seats are wide and comfortable, particularly the generously driver’s chair. Back and thigh support are excellent for all five seating positions. The Ford Zetec engine is always audible from the driver’s seat, with the A/T version slightly quieter. Road and wind noise are moderate, and there were no squeaks or rattles in our 7000-km old unit. The Ford has the airiest cabin, helped by the light-colored (but hard) plastics and fabrics. Visibility is good even towards the rear, as there’s no spare tire to block the view.
For your daily fix of Michelle Branch, it’s best to stay in the Ford. There’s some depth and clarity in the sound, a no-magazine 6-CD changer, and best of all a large volume knob. The RAV has a 1-DIN CD unit but has ten more discs under the driver’s seat. Every performer sounds like they’re singing from the bottom of a deep well, though. For other types of sound environments, the CR-V’s 2-DIN Kenwood has the usual useless Church/Disco/Morgue settings, a zillion tiny buttons and the trademark Swimming Dolphin. Not-too-awful sound can be coaxed out after much fiddling with the equalizer.
Luggage and Utility
These three present themselves as utility vehicles, and though none of them come close to a refrigerator-type van, they do try hard at it.
For carrying stuff, the RAV rear door opening is huge, but so is the clearance required. It also swings open on the correct side—if you’re in Japan. For LHD countries, it faces the wrong way, into the traffic side. The load floor is commendably low and flat. Still, the shallow space and protrusions from the wheel wells limit the carrying capacity. Fitting four pieces of full-sized airport luggage will take some juggling. The second row seats can be folded or even removed, without tools, in less than a minute.
With its third seat in place, the CR-V has nearly zero luggage space. It’s easy to collapse and flip up the seat, though, leaving an enormous space that can swallow stacks of monobloc chairs five high. You’ll need some additional lifting to clear the small lip at the tailgate. As with the RAV, you can fold and tumble the second row of seats without removing the headrests. The rear glass still flips up, and, thankfully, it’s now mounted on the rear door itself. Unfortunately, the rear door also swings open to the traffic side. There’s a tiny picnic table under the third row, and below the picnic table a deep waterproof bucket. The CR-V is indeed the Samsonite luggage of this group.
The Escape does pretty well considering its spare tire is mounted inside the cargo space and not the rear door. Because of that, the rear door can swing up instead of sideways. This makes the Escape the easiest to load in a tight space. The load floor is high because of the spare tire, but the luggage area is deep and wide, with various compartments and a storage net for smaller objects. The Escape’s seats can be folded flat, but the headrests have to be removed, the seat cushion flipped up and the seat back pushed forward. The split is a useful 70/30, allowing a choice of one or two rear passengers with the additional luggage space.
The Great Outdoors
Buying a compact SUV means you’re not limited to the pavement, and when the great outdoors calls, you can finally say yes. You can’t expect any of these three to climb Mount Pinatubo, but they’ll do just fine on dirt roads.
The RAV has full-time four-wheel drive, with no need for any switching or shifting. The power transfer to the rear wheels is palpable in climbing and in wet weather, making sure the car can keep propelling itself forward. The RAV should do find on sand or light mud, but watch out for obstacles. The ground clearance is just 180 mm, and it can scrape its low-hanging muffler on parking-lot rocks, despite its 28/29 degree approach/departure angle. Expect the RAV to bounce around if you attempt to take on the rough stuff.
The Escape also likes playing in the mud, wiggling for traction then slowly pulling its way out. There are two positions for the four-wheel drive: “Auto” and “On.” “Auto” means front-wheel drive in dry conditions, with the rears engaging automatically when the fronts start to slip. If you intend to do some mud-plugging, “On” engages all four wheels. Auto helps to conserve fuel and improve the handling in the dry. You can’t leave it in “On” during everyday driving on tarmac, as it will wreck the drivetrain. Ground clearance is higher at 198 mm, with 28/22 degree approach/departure. True to its “no boundaries” image, the Escape feels the most comfortable off-road, with a calm ride even on uneven soil.
With the removal of its part-time four-wheel drive system, the CR-V is pure city slicker. The 205 mm ground clearance means that gravel driveways and sharp slopes should pose no real problem. With its skinny tires and drive to the fronts only, the CR-V can hardly keep traction on dry pavement, and taking it onto a damp forest trail is out of the question.
Running Costs
The Ford comes with just a two-year warranty, but it does include emergency roadside assistance. It gets 6.55 km / liter at the pump, a figure similar to the Real-Time Four-Wheel Drive equipped 2001 Honda CR-V.
Toyota recently upgraded its warranty to three years/100,000 km, but for parts only. You’ll have to pay for labor if anything breaks after the first 1000 km. Mileage is a consistent 7.7 km / liter, with 8.5 km on highway runs: not bad for a vehicle with full-time four-wheel drive.
The CR-V returns a frugal 8.16 km/liter, even after ferrying eight passengers, and repeated use of the VTEC performance cam. The Honda needs less periodic maintenance, thanks to a 10,000-kilometer interval between check-ups. Then, on the subject of warranty, the CR-V carries Honda’s new three-year /100,000-km parts and labor warranty.
Killer Choice
The RAV4 drops out of the contest first. It is the best replacement for a sporty small car, not a midsized sedan. Its interior room is adequate only for four people, and luggage space is limited. In its favor, the RAV clings to corners and has a gutsy engine. It looks like a million bucks and it’s the only one you will wake up early on a Sunday morning to drive, even if you aren’t headed anywhere in particular.
The Ford Escape is nearly as agile, provides a soothing ride and has an understated mini-Expedition look to it. It beats the RAV in practicality, offering comfortable seating, large luggage space, and the best on- and off-road behavior of the three. If you will be seating no more than five, the Escape belongs in your garage. With cost no object, this is the winner.
Then there’s the CR-V. With our P1.3 million budget, you can take home the CR-V and about P350,000 in change: that’s not a small sum even if you do convert it to dollars. If you can live with the awful second-row seating arrangement and the surprised-frog looks, and intend to stay on paved roads, then this takes the checkered flag. The best warranty and fuel mileage seal the victory.
You won’t be gazing longingly at the CR-V as it sits on your driveway. Heck, you might even forget what you drove home that day. It’s a vehicle that will take you where you need to go with a minimum of fuss and hassle—it’s an appliance. But what an appliance! This isn’t just a replacement for a midsize sedan. It replaces the sedan, minivan and utility vehicle—all for less than one million pesos. In this company, that’s an unbeatable proposition.
motioncars.com thanks:
Ford Group Philippines for providing us with the Escape XLT A/T and Honda Cars Philippines for providing us with the CR-V A/T during this special face-off road test.
By Jason Ang | Photos By Ulysses Ang and Jason Ang
Originally Published in the December 2002 Issue
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.