Ford, Honda Cross Paths On Sales of SUVs
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Ford, Honda Cross Paths On Sales of SUVs
CR-V Passes the Once-Dominant Explorer
The Wall Street Journal; July 23, 2007
Frankly, I never through the CR-V would make it; I guess it’s good for Honda that I’m not part of they project planning team!
The Wall Street Journal; July 23, 2007
Deb Nison is a data warehouse developer in Portland, Ore., who likes to go snowboarding on nearby Mt. Hood. Once upon a time, she drove a Chevy TrailBlazer, and later a Subaru Forester. Today, she owns a 2007 Honda CR-V.
"I like the way it handles," she says. She appreciates feeling "ridiculously safe" in a vehicle with standard head protecting airbags. And for an SUV, she says, it gets "decent mileage" -- about 23 miles per gallon so far around town.
Ms. Nison is just one reason why the Honda CR-V is, as of June 30, America's best-selling sport-utility vehicle. The CR-V's rise, and the parallel collapse in demand for "real" SUVs like the TrailBlazer and the one-time King of SUVs, the Ford Explorer, reveal a lot about why the American auto industry is in the shape it's in right now.
Just 10 years ago -- a mere two product generations in auto industry terms -- America was SUV Nation. SUV meant a tough looking box perched on a heavy steel ladder frame borrowed from a pickup truck. No vehicle did a better job capturing the appeal of this formula than the Ford Explorer.
In 1997, Ford Motor Co. sold more than 383,000 Explorers. Three years later, Ford sold more than 445,000 Explorers. It's not a coincidence that Ford earned record profits during this period. The Explorer was a perfect automotive money-making machine: A high volume model that sold at premium prices. If Henry Ford or Alfred P. Sloan, the architect of General Motors Corp.'s rise to power, had been alive in 1997, they would have understood the Explorer's business model immediately -- and approved.
Of course, it helped -- a lot -- that the late 1990s were an era of ultra cheap gas. Today's V-6-powered Explorer is rated at 15 miles per gallon in the city, and 20 mpg highway. Not bad for a truck that weighs more than 4,600 pounds, perhaps, but not good in any absolute way. But at $1 or so a gallon during the heady days of the dot-com boom, a lot of American families could afford to take a "What Me Worry?" attitude toward gasoline prices. The Explorer's combination of a tall-in-the-saddle ride, "go anywhere" four-wheel-drive capability and rugged looks became a suburban status symbol.
But even as the Explorer was enjoying its peak years, Honda Motor Co. began offering something new. The Honda CR-V, launched in 1997, looked like an SUV that had taken a wrong turn on to the set of "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." It had the boxy profile of an SUV, and the rear cargo space, and all wheel drive. But it was more than 1,000 pounds lighter than an Explorer, and smaller in every dimension. Underneath, the CR-V was built like a compact, front-wheel drive Honda Civic. There was no heavy duty ladder frame, which among other things meant it couldn't tow very much.
The industry struggled with what to call vehicles like the CR-V -- cute utes, car-truck hybrids -- before settling on "crossover."
In the late 1990s, the CR-V sold modestly compared to the mighty Explorer. In 1997, Honda sold just shy of 67,000. By 2000, sales had risen to just over 118,000. In other words, barely half of one Explorer assembly plant's annual production.
The Explorer, and the even larger SUVs such as the Hummer H2 that built on its success, were the T-Rexes of the American road. The Honda CR-V was the furtive mammal, scurrying to stay out of harm's way.
Did somebody say, asteroid?
When it comes to the auto industry, dinosaur metaphors are irresistible. The Great SUV Die-off of the last three to four years is the most dramatic example of how vulnerable the auto industry and its long product design cycles are to short-term shocks since the oil embargoes of the 1970s.
From the peak of more than 445,000 Explorers sold in 2000, Explorer sales have fallen by nearly 60% through the end of 2006. By the end of 2007, Ford may be lucky to sell much more than 150,000 Explorers -- the capacity of just one shift of production at one assembly plant. GM's rival mid-size, traditional SUVs are in the same downward spiral. Within a few years, it's probable that neither Ford nor GM will even sell a body-on-frame mid-sized SUV.
There's more to this than just $3 a gallon gasoline. Consider how the CR-V has redefined success. It's the best-selling SUV in America, but through the first half of this year, Honda has sold only about 104,000. By the end of the year, CR-V sales might top 200,000, but probably not by much. In other words, No. 1 in the SUV segment today means selling fewer than half as many vehicles as Ford did when the Explorer was No. 1 a decade ago.
That market fragmentation is one reason why Detroit auto makers, including Ford, are having such trouble. It's harder and harder to sell a full assembly plant's worth of one type of vehicle just in the U.S. Honda's strategy for realizing economies of scale with the CR-V doesn't depend on that. The company sells the CR-V around the world, builds it using some of the engineering and manufacturing tools used for the higher volume Honda Civic.
Beyond that, the CR-V represents a better solution to the challenge from customers such as Ms. Nison. As is often the case when Japanese auto makers attack a segment invented by Detroit, it has taken Honda three generations to really get it right. The first generation CR-V was too small for many. The second generation model was too drab -- by Honda's own admission. Generation III, launched in 2007, combines an efficient interior package, five-star front and side crash-test ratings, AND styling that is sportier on the outside, and clever and uncluttered on the inside.
One other wise choice Honda made was to keep the CR-V a four-cylinder model, with highway fuel economy rated at 30 mpg for two-wheel-drive models, 28 for the all-wheel drive.
On the road, the CR-V is quiet, and at just over 3,500 pounds, it is less ponderous and easier to maneuver than a standard SUV. It also does better on the government rollover test, scoring four stars to an Explorer's three.
What's the lesson for Detroit? The Detroit auto makers already know. . The demise of the Explorer doesn't mean Americans don't want to drive vehicles with all wheel drive, lots of cargo space and a tall driver's seating position. A large segment of the car buying public wants all that -- just with better handling, more safety technology and better fuel economy. That's why even as the Explorer fades away, Ford (and GM and Chrysler) are rushing out more vehicles to compete with the CR-V and its larger brother, the Honda Pilot, and enjoying success. Ford's total "crossover" sales are up 83% in June, even as overall Ford sales fell 8%. An internal Ford tally finds that Ford -- including its European luxury brands -- is now the leading seller of crossover vehicles in the U.S., with GM close behind.
Ford, in fact, has a shot at wrestling back the No. 1 SUV in America title from the CR-V if it can continue to boost demand for its recently redesigned Escape.
"I like the way it handles," she says. She appreciates feeling "ridiculously safe" in a vehicle with standard head protecting airbags. And for an SUV, she says, it gets "decent mileage" -- about 23 miles per gallon so far around town.
Ms. Nison is just one reason why the Honda CR-V is, as of June 30, America's best-selling sport-utility vehicle. The CR-V's rise, and the parallel collapse in demand for "real" SUVs like the TrailBlazer and the one-time King of SUVs, the Ford Explorer, reveal a lot about why the American auto industry is in the shape it's in right now.
Just 10 years ago -- a mere two product generations in auto industry terms -- America was SUV Nation. SUV meant a tough looking box perched on a heavy steel ladder frame borrowed from a pickup truck. No vehicle did a better job capturing the appeal of this formula than the Ford Explorer.
In 1997, Ford Motor Co. sold more than 383,000 Explorers. Three years later, Ford sold more than 445,000 Explorers. It's not a coincidence that Ford earned record profits during this period. The Explorer was a perfect automotive money-making machine: A high volume model that sold at premium prices. If Henry Ford or Alfred P. Sloan, the architect of General Motors Corp.'s rise to power, had been alive in 1997, they would have understood the Explorer's business model immediately -- and approved.
Of course, it helped -- a lot -- that the late 1990s were an era of ultra cheap gas. Today's V-6-powered Explorer is rated at 15 miles per gallon in the city, and 20 mpg highway. Not bad for a truck that weighs more than 4,600 pounds, perhaps, but not good in any absolute way. But at $1 or so a gallon during the heady days of the dot-com boom, a lot of American families could afford to take a "What Me Worry?" attitude toward gasoline prices. The Explorer's combination of a tall-in-the-saddle ride, "go anywhere" four-wheel-drive capability and rugged looks became a suburban status symbol.
But even as the Explorer was enjoying its peak years, Honda Motor Co. began offering something new. The Honda CR-V, launched in 1997, looked like an SUV that had taken a wrong turn on to the set of "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." It had the boxy profile of an SUV, and the rear cargo space, and all wheel drive. But it was more than 1,000 pounds lighter than an Explorer, and smaller in every dimension. Underneath, the CR-V was built like a compact, front-wheel drive Honda Civic. There was no heavy duty ladder frame, which among other things meant it couldn't tow very much.
The industry struggled with what to call vehicles like the CR-V -- cute utes, car-truck hybrids -- before settling on "crossover."
In the late 1990s, the CR-V sold modestly compared to the mighty Explorer. In 1997, Honda sold just shy of 67,000. By 2000, sales had risen to just over 118,000. In other words, barely half of one Explorer assembly plant's annual production.
The Explorer, and the even larger SUVs such as the Hummer H2 that built on its success, were the T-Rexes of the American road. The Honda CR-V was the furtive mammal, scurrying to stay out of harm's way.
Did somebody say, asteroid?
When it comes to the auto industry, dinosaur metaphors are irresistible. The Great SUV Die-off of the last three to four years is the most dramatic example of how vulnerable the auto industry and its long product design cycles are to short-term shocks since the oil embargoes of the 1970s.
From the peak of more than 445,000 Explorers sold in 2000, Explorer sales have fallen by nearly 60% through the end of 2006. By the end of 2007, Ford may be lucky to sell much more than 150,000 Explorers -- the capacity of just one shift of production at one assembly plant. GM's rival mid-size, traditional SUVs are in the same downward spiral. Within a few years, it's probable that neither Ford nor GM will even sell a body-on-frame mid-sized SUV.
There's more to this than just $3 a gallon gasoline. Consider how the CR-V has redefined success. It's the best-selling SUV in America, but through the first half of this year, Honda has sold only about 104,000. By the end of the year, CR-V sales might top 200,000, but probably not by much. In other words, No. 1 in the SUV segment today means selling fewer than half as many vehicles as Ford did when the Explorer was No. 1 a decade ago.
That market fragmentation is one reason why Detroit auto makers, including Ford, are having such trouble. It's harder and harder to sell a full assembly plant's worth of one type of vehicle just in the U.S. Honda's strategy for realizing economies of scale with the CR-V doesn't depend on that. The company sells the CR-V around the world, builds it using some of the engineering and manufacturing tools used for the higher volume Honda Civic.
Beyond that, the CR-V represents a better solution to the challenge from customers such as Ms. Nison. As is often the case when Japanese auto makers attack a segment invented by Detroit, it has taken Honda three generations to really get it right. The first generation CR-V was too small for many. The second generation model was too drab -- by Honda's own admission. Generation III, launched in 2007, combines an efficient interior package, five-star front and side crash-test ratings, AND styling that is sportier on the outside, and clever and uncluttered on the inside.
One other wise choice Honda made was to keep the CR-V a four-cylinder model, with highway fuel economy rated at 30 mpg for two-wheel-drive models, 28 for the all-wheel drive.
On the road, the CR-V is quiet, and at just over 3,500 pounds, it is less ponderous and easier to maneuver than a standard SUV. It also does better on the government rollover test, scoring four stars to an Explorer's three.
What's the lesson for Detroit? The Detroit auto makers already know. . The demise of the Explorer doesn't mean Americans don't want to drive vehicles with all wheel drive, lots of cargo space and a tall driver's seating position. A large segment of the car buying public wants all that -- just with better handling, more safety technology and better fuel economy. That's why even as the Explorer fades away, Ford (and GM and Chrysler) are rushing out more vehicles to compete with the CR-V and its larger brother, the Honda Pilot, and enjoying success. Ford's total "crossover" sales are up 83% in June, even as overall Ford sales fell 8%. An internal Ford tally finds that Ford -- including its European luxury brands -- is now the leading seller of crossover vehicles in the U.S., with GM close behind.
Ford, in fact, has a shot at wrestling back the No. 1 SUV in America title from the CR-V if it can continue to boost demand for its recently redesigned Escape.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Doesn't surprise me at all. Back when I 1st joined this site, I often railed against our makers for diverting so much attention into SUVs. I was especially scathing of GM because they actually diverted car development funds into trucks and SUVs. Ron Zarella, after leaving GM gave an interview where he was asked his greatest regret. He said not investing more into trucks and SUVs sooner.
My point back then was that: 1) they were forfeiting the entire car market to foreign car makers who were going to eat up their share, and 2) that as history as a guide, fuel prices are prone to sudden and sustained rises for the most pittifully ridiculous reasons... what would happen if a real reason occured. Every time I brought it up with company reps, the response was always the same: "We're only building what people want".... as if no one else was.
I've been wrong about alot of opinions. The H2 sold well... the Dodge Ram redesign increased sales...the 1st gen CTS wasn't ugly in person... Ford didn't bring out all those great cars they planned and ended up worse off than GM instead of eventially being able to buy GM...... Dieter Zetsche was actually good for Chrysler. But unfortunately, I was dead right about the collaspe of the SUV market.
My point back then was that: 1) they were forfeiting the entire car market to foreign car makers who were going to eat up their share, and 2) that as history as a guide, fuel prices are prone to sudden and sustained rises for the most pittifully ridiculous reasons... what would happen if a real reason occured. Every time I brought it up with company reps, the response was always the same: "We're only building what people want".... as if no one else was.
I've been wrong about alot of opinions. The H2 sold well... the Dodge Ram redesign increased sales...the 1st gen CTS wasn't ugly in person... Ford didn't bring out all those great cars they planned and ended up worse off than GM instead of eventially being able to buy GM...... Dieter Zetsche was actually good for Chrysler. But unfortunately, I was dead right about the collaspe of the SUV market.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
A sad milestone, but not an inevitable one.
I have to admit that I don't like the headline, but it does not surprise me.
Take this into account...
How many SUV's does Honda offer the public today?
How many does Ford offer he public today?
How about GM?
How about Toyota?
How about Kia?
How about Jeep?
How about Hyundai?
Porsche?
BMW?
Range Rover?
Back in 1995 to 2000, there were MAYBE a handful of players in this arena... like the Explorer, Trailblazer, Grand Cherokee, etc.
It goes without saying that there are only so many buyers for this type of vehicle, and when the number of offerings doubles or triples, the sales volume of all of them will eventually fall to some lesser but sustainable level.
The same happened to Mustang when it came out in 1964. It sold over a half-million units in it's first year when there was virtually no competition. But by 1970, there were Camaros, Firebirds, Cudas, Chargers, Challengers, Javelins and numerous other offerings that were aimed at the same market from competitors, and even the Cougar stole thunder from Mustang from the same manufacturer starting in 1967. Obviously sales volume fell for Mustang due to the expansive list of competitive models.
I guess what saddens me most about that article is the attitude and comments about feeling "rediculously safe", liking "the way it handles", and boasting about the mileage of a PUNY 4-banger at 23mpg when they say later in the same article that is was rated to get 30 (or 28 for the AWD version).
So again, it's OK for imports to fall short on their promises, but domestics get lynched for not meeting advertised numbers?!?!
[sarcasm = on, heat = high]
First of all - if she feels "rediculously safe" in her CR-V, I'm happy for her.
That's a sign of not knowing jack about safety in an SUV (or any other car), because you are never rediculously safe when you are on the road.
As for facts...
CR-V gets 5- stars across the board from NHSTA - http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/4108.html
Guess what the Explorer gets? 5- stars across the board from NHSTA - http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3879.html
One weighs 4486 lbs as tested, the other weighs 3486 as tested - which one would you rather be in during a vehicle-to-vehicle crash?
Yeah - REDICULOUSLY SAFE, sounds like she is MUCH safer in the Honda to me, doesn't it to you?.
Second, she likes the way it handles. Well, great. Was it 2wd versus 4wd or AWD? 2-dr versus 4-dr? I mean, it's her subjective opinion, but unless the two were compared apples-to-apples, I could see a huge reason why a 4500-lb 4x4 with a V8 or V6 would "handle" a little more portly than a 3400-lb 4-cyl go cart. Let's see how it "handles" when she tries to pull anything behind it (U-haul trailer, boat, utility trailer, etc.).
Third, the 23 mpg she is getting in her CR-V is far less than it's rated numbers, yet it is thrown out as a reason for the choice. WTF?!?! I have a 1995 Eddie Bauer Explorer 4x4 with the 4.0 V6 and auto trans - it has the electronic display console that the wife and I leave on "avg fuel econ". It ALWAYS says 21.x to 23.x mpg depending on when/where we are. Just took a road trip 2 weeks ago and averaged over 24 mpg on an 800 mile round trip to Myrtle Beach and back for 4 days. That's city and highway combined.
Know what's even more sick? I have over 255k miles on my original engine and tranny and still get these kind of numbers!!!!
So I have a12-y/o 4x4 Explorer with a quarter million miles on it, and I STILL get better mileage than her new 4-cyl CR-V. Yet, she boasts about it getting 23 mpg as if it's a badge of honor.
Even funnier... Ford Escape takes the CR-V in mileage, has just as good crash ratings, is closer in weight and size, yet is still more powerful. So why they didn't comp the CR-V against the Escape instead of the Explorer?
[sarcasm = off, heat = low]
Goes back to the same old cliche about perception if you ask me.
Why did this article even get written?
Because some ding-dong thought it would get attention if they advertised that the mighty Explorer has finally been outsold by some Honda offering - THAT'S WHY.
Heck, it didn't even say in the article that Ms. Nison even LOOKED AT AN EXPLORER before buying her CR-V. What kind of reference does that make her anyways?!?!
At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, I have to stand back and claim that this article does smack of media bias and a grab for more anti-American propaganda. Sure, there are a few points made in the article that are credible, but obvious as well, and they don't have so much to do with the Explorer as they do the SUV landscape as a whole.
I wonder how long it would take me to find a person who never shopped Honda for a truck, but bought a Ford or Chevy because they "handled better, felt safer, and got better cargo capacity than a Honda? Would THAT make a great article? How about shock-value and headline appeal?
See my point.
Not making an excuse, or looking for an argument, just calling it like I see it.
You have to admit, If they are going to bash the Explorer and praise the CR-V, they could have AT LEAST found a person to intervew that has owned both or cross-shopped both and can give valid accounts for both vehicles.
I have to admit that I don't like the headline, but it does not surprise me.
Take this into account...
How many SUV's does Honda offer the public today?
How many does Ford offer he public today?
How about GM?
How about Toyota?
How about Kia?
How about Jeep?
How about Hyundai?
Porsche?
BMW?
Range Rover?
Back in 1995 to 2000, there were MAYBE a handful of players in this arena... like the Explorer, Trailblazer, Grand Cherokee, etc.
It goes without saying that there are only so many buyers for this type of vehicle, and when the number of offerings doubles or triples, the sales volume of all of them will eventually fall to some lesser but sustainable level.
The same happened to Mustang when it came out in 1964. It sold over a half-million units in it's first year when there was virtually no competition. But by 1970, there were Camaros, Firebirds, Cudas, Chargers, Challengers, Javelins and numerous other offerings that were aimed at the same market from competitors, and even the Cougar stole thunder from Mustang from the same manufacturer starting in 1967. Obviously sales volume fell for Mustang due to the expansive list of competitive models.
I guess what saddens me most about that article is the attitude and comments about feeling "rediculously safe", liking "the way it handles", and boasting about the mileage of a PUNY 4-banger at 23mpg when they say later in the same article that is was rated to get 30 (or 28 for the AWD version).
So again, it's OK for imports to fall short on their promises, but domestics get lynched for not meeting advertised numbers?!?!
[sarcasm = on, heat = high]
First of all - if she feels "rediculously safe" in her CR-V, I'm happy for her.
That's a sign of not knowing jack about safety in an SUV (or any other car), because you are never rediculously safe when you are on the road.
As for facts...
CR-V gets 5- stars across the board from NHSTA - http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/4108.html
Guess what the Explorer gets? 5- stars across the board from NHSTA - http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3879.html
One weighs 4486 lbs as tested, the other weighs 3486 as tested - which one would you rather be in during a vehicle-to-vehicle crash?
Yeah - REDICULOUSLY SAFE, sounds like she is MUCH safer in the Honda to me, doesn't it to you?.
Second, she likes the way it handles. Well, great. Was it 2wd versus 4wd or AWD? 2-dr versus 4-dr? I mean, it's her subjective opinion, but unless the two were compared apples-to-apples, I could see a huge reason why a 4500-lb 4x4 with a V8 or V6 would "handle" a little more portly than a 3400-lb 4-cyl go cart. Let's see how it "handles" when she tries to pull anything behind it (U-haul trailer, boat, utility trailer, etc.).
Third, the 23 mpg she is getting in her CR-V is far less than it's rated numbers, yet it is thrown out as a reason for the choice. WTF?!?! I have a 1995 Eddie Bauer Explorer 4x4 with the 4.0 V6 and auto trans - it has the electronic display console that the wife and I leave on "avg fuel econ". It ALWAYS says 21.x to 23.x mpg depending on when/where we are. Just took a road trip 2 weeks ago and averaged over 24 mpg on an 800 mile round trip to Myrtle Beach and back for 4 days. That's city and highway combined.
Know what's even more sick? I have over 255k miles on my original engine and tranny and still get these kind of numbers!!!!
So I have a12-y/o 4x4 Explorer with a quarter million miles on it, and I STILL get better mileage than her new 4-cyl CR-V. Yet, she boasts about it getting 23 mpg as if it's a badge of honor.
Even funnier... Ford Escape takes the CR-V in mileage, has just as good crash ratings, is closer in weight and size, yet is still more powerful. So why they didn't comp the CR-V against the Escape instead of the Explorer?
[sarcasm = off, heat = low]
Goes back to the same old cliche about perception if you ask me.
Why did this article even get written?
Because some ding-dong thought it would get attention if they advertised that the mighty Explorer has finally been outsold by some Honda offering - THAT'S WHY.
Heck, it didn't even say in the article that Ms. Nison even LOOKED AT AN EXPLORER before buying her CR-V. What kind of reference does that make her anyways?!?!
At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, I have to stand back and claim that this article does smack of media bias and a grab for more anti-American propaganda. Sure, there are a few points made in the article that are credible, but obvious as well, and they don't have so much to do with the Explorer as they do the SUV landscape as a whole.
I wonder how long it would take me to find a person who never shopped Honda for a truck, but bought a Ford or Chevy because they "handled better, felt safer, and got better cargo capacity than a Honda? Would THAT make a great article? How about shock-value and headline appeal?
See my point.
Not making an excuse, or looking for an argument, just calling it like I see it.
You have to admit, If they are going to bash the Explorer and praise the CR-V, they could have AT LEAST found a person to intervew that has owned both or cross-shopped both and can give valid accounts for both vehicles.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
and boasting about the mileage of a PUNY 4-banger at 23mpg when they say later in the same article that is was rated to get 30 (or 28 for the AWD version).
So again, it's OK for imports to fall short on their promises, but domestics get lynched for not meeting advertised numbers?!?!
So again, it's OK for imports to fall short on their promises, but domestics get lynched for not meeting advertised numbers?!?!
And for an SUV, she says, it gets "decent mileage" -- about 23 miles per gallon so far around town............
highway fuel economy rated at 30 mpg for two-wheel-drive models, 28 for the all-wheel drive
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Thank you, Proud. 
I was going to bring up the Escape myself. Obviously there has been a shift away from BOF SUVs (even though the Explorer is a damn good one). I'm sure the tire/rollover debacle didn't help the Explorer name, either.
But The Explorer is a larger, 3rd row equipped SUV. Ford has the Escape to go against the likes of the CRV.
How is the Honda Pilot selling compared to the Explorer?
I was going to bring up the Escape myself. Obviously there has been a shift away from BOF SUVs (even though the Explorer is a damn good one). I'm sure the tire/rollover debacle didn't help the Explorer name, either.
But The Explorer is a larger, 3rd row equipped SUV. Ford has the Escape to go against the likes of the CRV.
How is the Honda Pilot selling compared to the Explorer?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
Initial steering feel and "handling" are getting blurred way to much. Waaaay to much!!
That said, i'll admit that a foriegn car is more likely to have a "good steering feel" to it. Compared to a small GM car such as a Sunfire versus a Civic of the same years, its a silly comparison. At full load and in all out thrash mode the GM cars could be just as capable for all I know but there is definately that "different" feel in the steering.
That said, i'll admit that a foriegn car is more likely to have a "good steering feel" to it. Compared to a small GM car such as a Sunfire versus a Civic of the same years, its a silly comparison. At full load and in all out thrash mode the GM cars could be just as capable for all I know but there is definately that "different" feel in the steering.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Proud,
In my always humble opinion, I think you are missing the point of the article or at least, reading more into it than intended.
I don't think the article necessairly tried to compare the two vehicles or that it inteded to do so other than for the purpose of pointing out why the public is walking away from large, traditional SUVs and toward vehicles like the CR-V...in other words, to highlight the market shift going on rightg now. I suspect the main reason the explorer was mentioned so frequently was precisely because it was the "king of the hill" for so long not because it was a lessor vehicle.
As for the Escape; again I don't think the article was intended to take a swipe at it; just that the article wasn't intended to be a "copmarison/this is what you should buy because" type of article and what it did say about the Escape seemed "positive" to me.
Personally, I'll always prefer the full-sized, truck-based SUVs - I care little about gas mileage and a lot more about safety and comfort. I suspect, however, that these vehicles really will go the way of the dinasour!
Very sad even if understandable.
In my always humble opinion, I think you are missing the point of the article or at least, reading more into it than intended.
I don't think the article necessairly tried to compare the two vehicles or that it inteded to do so other than for the purpose of pointing out why the public is walking away from large, traditional SUVs and toward vehicles like the CR-V...in other words, to highlight the market shift going on rightg now. I suspect the main reason the explorer was mentioned so frequently was precisely because it was the "king of the hill" for so long not because it was a lessor vehicle.
As for the Escape; again I don't think the article was intended to take a swipe at it; just that the article wasn't intended to be a "copmarison/this is what you should buy because" type of article and what it did say about the Escape seemed "positive" to me.
Personally, I'll always prefer the full-sized, truck-based SUVs - I care little about gas mileage and a lot more about safety and comfort. I suspect, however, that these vehicles really will go the way of the dinasour!
Very sad even if understandable.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Jul 24, 2007 at 12:03 PM.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Initial steering feel and "handling" are getting blurred way to much. Waaaay to much!!
That said, i'll admit that a foriegn car is more likely to have a "good steering feel" to it. Compared to a small GM car such as a Sunfire versus a Civic of the same years, its a silly comparison. At full load and in all out thrash mode the GM cars could be just as capable for all I know but there is definately that "different" feel in the steering.
That said, i'll admit that a foriegn car is more likely to have a "good steering feel" to it. Compared to a small GM car such as a Sunfire versus a Civic of the same years, its a silly comparison. At full load and in all out thrash mode the GM cars could be just as capable for all I know but there is definately that "different" feel in the steering.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Proud,
you always tend to have a patriotic spin on any import/domestic comparison, and for you it's a badge of honor to drive domestic. Nothing wrong with that, but you are biased towards domestics
Now, before anyone starts thinking I turned into import lover since I drive A6... No, not quite. 3 out of 5 cars I owned were American (Beretta, then Beretta GTZ, then Camaro). I think I am being quite objective in my view of domestic/import vehicles.
First of all, I think CR-V's powertrain (4 cylinders) is pathetic for 3500 lbs. Just imagine your Z28 with the VTEC engine. However. It does get good gas mileage, better than any 6-cylinder mid-size SUV (Explorer, TrailBlazer, etc). But they're not in the same league and category.
What many of you fail to realize is that mid-size or full-size SUVs fail to accomplish their purpose with certain buyers. Why get a full-frame SUV that weighs 4500+ lbs when all you need is a tall vehicle to drive around town? The woman interviewed does not tow a boat, does not tow a trailer, does not tow a race car. For her, and many others, this Honda CR-V fits perfectly. As would Escape. So the question is, why is CR-V praised but not Escape? That's a different direction that may be worth considering, but CR-V does have better appeal than Escape for many reasons that I won't discuss here. It handles better because it's lighter, smaller and more nimble. The woman in the article likes the handling of that particular CR-V, whereas others prefer Lincoln Navigator or Tahoe (seen plenty of women drive those). What people should realize, and I wish the journalist writing the article would acknowledge that) is that CR-V has a different appeal than other SUVs. It could be luring many car buyers, it does not necessarily mean that buyers of other SUVs are moving to CR-V.
As for her comment "ridiculously safe", as the writer of the article, I would point out the "ridiculousness" of SUV owners (of any size) that feel they're "ridiculously safe". Come wintertime, and there are more SUV rollovers than cars.
All in all, what does that article say? CR-V gained popularity, for reasons not completely understood or known. Will it sway me to acquire one? No. If I were to get an SUV, it would be a Tahoe or Denali - the mother of SUVs. Period. However, if a woman neighbour asked me for a recommendation on an SUV that she needs in which to sprint around town, I would suggest taht she test drive the CR-V. Along with some others.
you always tend to have a patriotic spin on any import/domestic comparison, and for you it's a badge of honor to drive domestic. Nothing wrong with that, but you are biased towards domestics
Now, before anyone starts thinking I turned into import lover since I drive A6... No, not quite. 3 out of 5 cars I owned were American (Beretta, then Beretta GTZ, then Camaro). I think I am being quite objective in my view of domestic/import vehicles.
First of all, I think CR-V's powertrain (4 cylinders) is pathetic for 3500 lbs. Just imagine your Z28 with the VTEC engine. However. It does get good gas mileage, better than any 6-cylinder mid-size SUV (Explorer, TrailBlazer, etc). But they're not in the same league and category.
What many of you fail to realize is that mid-size or full-size SUVs fail to accomplish their purpose with certain buyers. Why get a full-frame SUV that weighs 4500+ lbs when all you need is a tall vehicle to drive around town? The woman interviewed does not tow a boat, does not tow a trailer, does not tow a race car. For her, and many others, this Honda CR-V fits perfectly. As would Escape. So the question is, why is CR-V praised but not Escape? That's a different direction that may be worth considering, but CR-V does have better appeal than Escape for many reasons that I won't discuss here. It handles better because it's lighter, smaller and more nimble. The woman in the article likes the handling of that particular CR-V, whereas others prefer Lincoln Navigator or Tahoe (seen plenty of women drive those). What people should realize, and I wish the journalist writing the article would acknowledge that) is that CR-V has a different appeal than other SUVs. It could be luring many car buyers, it does not necessarily mean that buyers of other SUVs are moving to CR-V.
As for her comment "ridiculously safe", as the writer of the article, I would point out the "ridiculousness" of SUV owners (of any size) that feel they're "ridiculously safe". Come wintertime, and there are more SUV rollovers than cars.
All in all, what does that article say? CR-V gained popularity, for reasons not completely understood or known. Will it sway me to acquire one? No. If I were to get an SUV, it would be a Tahoe or Denali - the mother of SUVs. Period. However, if a woman neighbour asked me for a recommendation on an SUV that she needs in which to sprint around town, I would suggest taht she test drive the CR-V. Along with some others.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
Doesn't surprise me at all. Back when I 1st joined this site, I often railed against our makers for diverting so much attention into SUVs. I was especially scathing of GM because they actually diverted car development funds into trucks and SUVs. Ron Zarella, after leaving GM gave an interview where he was asked his greatest regret. He said not investing more into trucks and SUVs sooner. (
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
January 30, 1996:
One sector of the economy that beat this trend [falling profits and lackluster retail] is car and truck sales... up more than one percent in November and up seven tenths of a percent in December. But managers at General Motors probably knew this already...today the world's number one car maker announced big profits..1.9 billion dollars in the last quarter...7 billion for all of 1995. What will it do with the cash? Marketplace's New York editor Marty Goldensohn has the story.
Goldensohn: "It's not a $6.9 kitty that's frivolously blown here and there explains auto analysts Marianne Keller, with Furman-Selz. GM, offers were decimated in the late 80's and early 90's, so much of the cash will be spent to bring out new products...Of the big three, GM--is by far the biggest firm...and the slowest to reinvent itself. Unlike Chrysler, for example, GM's still's producing some vehicles based on 1980's designs.
What about stockholders? Do they share the big profits in the short run? Well, they do get $1.20 per share in dividends out of this. Not much, says Keller.
Keller: "GM in fact, has the most miserly dividend in the auto industry...
What about the workers? There will be an $800 profit sharing check for every U.S. salaried and hourly employee... and top exec's will share millions too...based on a complex formula not yet revealed."
Goldensohn: "It also, among the 3 companies, has had most difficulty with unfunded pension liabilities. A billion dollars, says Keller, will go to shoring up pensions...And once all that's done, GM may want to add to its savings...it's cash balance of 10.9 billion dollars...money it needs for two reasons, to invest in new products during future hard times, and to shore up its current credit rating.
And don't expect investors to demand a bigger chunk of that growing $10.9 billion nest-egg, say the analysts we spoke with today. GM badly needs the cash from its record profit...and investors all know it.
One sector of the economy that beat this trend [falling profits and lackluster retail] is car and truck sales... up more than one percent in November and up seven tenths of a percent in December. But managers at General Motors probably knew this already...today the world's number one car maker announced big profits..1.9 billion dollars in the last quarter...7 billion for all of 1995. What will it do with the cash? Marketplace's New York editor Marty Goldensohn has the story.
Goldensohn: "It's not a $6.9 kitty that's frivolously blown here and there explains auto analysts Marianne Keller, with Furman-Selz. GM, offers were decimated in the late 80's and early 90's, so much of the cash will be spent to bring out new products...Of the big three, GM--is by far the biggest firm...and the slowest to reinvent itself. Unlike Chrysler, for example, GM's still's producing some vehicles based on 1980's designs.
What about stockholders? Do they share the big profits in the short run? Well, they do get $1.20 per share in dividends out of this. Not much, says Keller.
Keller: "GM in fact, has the most miserly dividend in the auto industry...
What about the workers? There will be an $800 profit sharing check for every U.S. salaried and hourly employee... and top exec's will share millions too...based on a complex formula not yet revealed."
Goldensohn: "It also, among the 3 companies, has had most difficulty with unfunded pension liabilities. A billion dollars, says Keller, will go to shoring up pensions...And once all that's done, GM may want to add to its savings...it's cash balance of 10.9 billion dollars...money it needs for two reasons, to invest in new products during future hard times, and to shore up its current credit rating.
And don't expect investors to demand a bigger chunk of that growing $10.9 billion nest-egg, say the analysts we spoke with today. GM badly needs the cash from its record profit...and investors all know it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
I don't think the article necessairly tried to compare the two vehicles
Actually, it sounds like another way of saying Explorer = dead/dying and CR-V = tops. So for lazy sheeple who won't read the article, they walk away thinking "CR-V displaced Explorer at the top of the heap so it rules now!".
I suspect the main reason the explorer was mentioned so frequently was precisely because it was the "king of the hill" for so long not because it was a lessor vehicle.
As for the Escape; again I don't think the article was intended to take a swipe at it; just that the article wasn't intended to be a "copmarison/this is what you should buy because" type of article and what it did say about the Escape seemed "positive" to me.
"Ford, in fact, has a shot at wrestling back the No. 1 SUV in America title from the CR-V if it can continue to boost demand for its recently redesigned Escape. "
This does not smack of praise to me, after 5 or 6 paragraphs of what Honda has done right with the CR-V, and how the CR-V is perfect, "redefines success", and all that crap.
Call me kooky...
Personally, I'll always prefer the full-sized, truck-based SUVs - I care little about gas mileage and a lot more about safety and comfort. I suspect, however, that these vehicles really will go the way of the dinasour!
Very sad even if understandable.
Very sad even if understandable.
There will always be a segment for the heavy SUV, but it is shrinking, and the domestics need to realign with that. I think they are, just slowly. The Excursion is already gone, and more attention is being given to Escape and crossovers at Ford. GM has also begun to realign their products. It's just going to take time to get them done.
In the mean time, I'd still appreciate it if the media would give fair billing to all sides, and stop trying to persuade sheeple into import dealerships under the context that it's the "in-thing" to drive an import.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
I thought I hid it better than that.
As I said in another thread - if I am not going to be proud of what I make and buy it for my own use, how can I expect anyone else to want it? I call it "leading by example".
To me, it is not a negative thing to be be biased towards your own domestic product.
Seriously, I'm not hiding behind anything - you are dead-on about me. I want America on top, and I personally think that buying our products whenever possible and forcing our companies to change their ways is how we will get there.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 380
From: Gretna (Omaha), NE
Thing is, they used the Explorer and the Trail Blazer as examples of this when those are both platforms that are not being tended to... Look at what GM rolled out this year in the Outlook/Enclave/Acadia and Ford with the Edge, Escape and others...
These are the new line of SUVs that hopefully should take back the SUV market. Give them time and I'm sure the article will be changed again...
These are the new line of SUVs that hopefully should take back the SUV market. Give them time and I'm sure the article will be changed again...