Jump to content

August 2008 Sales: Ford Motor Company


Recommended Posts

Ford Reports August Sales
Ford Focus, Escape Remain Standouts in a Challenging Market
Sept 3rd /PRNewswire/
Link to Press Release


- Ford Focus sales were up 23 percent and Ford Escape sales were up 17 percent versus year ago.

- Lower demand for trucks and SUVs drives total Ford, Lincoln and Mercury sales down 26 percent.

- Ford updates second-half production plans.


DEARBORN, Mich., Sept. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Higher demand for
the fuel-efficient Ford Focus and Ford Escape continued in August, as
consumers continued moving to smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Ford Focus sales were up 23 percent and Escape sales were up 17 percent
versus a year ago, while the impact of a weak economy and lower demand for
large trucks and SUVs resulted in double-digit sales declines for Ford and
the auto industry.

"The Focus and Escape offer the features and fuel economy today's
consumer's want," said Jim Farley, Ford group vice president, Marketing and
Communications.

The 2009 Escape, with its new 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and
six-speed transmission, delivers class-leading highway fuel economy of 28
mpg -- matching the 2009 Toyota RAV4 and topping the Honda CR-V. The 2009
Escape Hybrid delivers 34 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway, making
it the most fuel-efficient utility vehicle available.

The 2009 Focus has similarly impressive fuel economy with an EPA
highway fuel economy of 35 mpg -- equal to the Toyota Corolla and the
smaller 2009 Honda Fit.

Overall, during August, Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicle sales totaled
151,021, down 26 percent. The decline primarily reflects lower demand for
SUVs (down 53 percent) and trucks (down 39 percent) and lower sales to
fleet customers (down 31 percent).

"We expect the second half of 2008 will be more challenging than the
first half, as weak economic conditions and the consumer credit crunch
continues," said Farley.

North American Production

Ford now plans to produce 890,000 vehicles in the second half of 2008
(420,000 vehicles in the third quarter and 470,000 vehicles in the fourth
quarter).

The second-half plan is 50,000 vehicles lower than the previous plan
(20,000 vehicles in the third quarter and 30,000 vehicles in the fourth
quarter). The reduction primarily reflects lower sales to daily rental
companies, lower production associated with the transfer of the Ford
Expedition and Lincoln Navigator from Michigan Truck Plant to Kentucky
Truck Plant, and a downward revision to the company's U.S. industry sales
forecast (to the low end of the previously provided range of 14.0 to 14.5
million).

Note: The sales data included in this release and the accompanying
tables are based largely on data reported by dealers representing their
sales to retail and fleet customers.

About Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), a global automotive industry leader based
in Dearborn, Mich., manufactures or distributes automobiles across six
continents. With about 229,000 employees and about 90 plants worldwide, the
company's core and affiliated automotive brands include Ford, Lincoln,
Mercury, Volvo and Mazda. The company provides financial services through
Ford Motor Credit Company. For more information regarding Ford's products,
please visit our website at http://www.ford.com.


FORD MOTOR COMPANY AUGUST 2008 U.S. SALES
                  -----------------------------------------

                              August       %           Year-To-Date    %
                              ------                   ------------
                          2008     2007  Change      2008       2007 Change
                          ----     ----  ------      ----       ---- ------
    Sales By Brand
      Ford             133,088  180,282   -26.2 1,250,834  1,465,888  -14.7
      Lincoln            9,540   10,423    -8.5    75,253     92,685  -18.8
      Mercury            8,393   12,296   -31.7    90,400    118,340  -23.6
                         -----   ------            ------    -------
        Total Ford,
         Lincoln and
         Mercury       151,021  203,001   -25.6 1,416,487  1,676,913  -15.5
      Volvo              4,669    9,119   -48.8    55,974     72,476  -22.8
                         -----    -----            ------     ------
        Total Ford
         Motor
         Company       155,690  212,120   -26.6 1,472,461  1,749,389  -15.8

    Ford, Lincoln and
     Mercury Sales By
     Type
      Cars              52,677   57,812    -8.9   510,299    537,789   -5.1
      Crossover Utility
       Vehicles         32,927   33,348    -1.3   273,320    270,291    1.1
      Sport Utility
       Vehicles         10,852   23,087   -53.0   119,773    196,044  -38.9
      Trucks and Vans   54,565   88,754   -38.5   513,095    672,789  -23.7
                        ------   ------           -------    -------
        Total Trucks    98,344  145,189   -32.3   906,188  1,139,124  -20.4
                        ------  -------           -------  ---------
          Total
           Vehicles    151,021  203,001   -25.6 1,416,487  1,676,913  -15.5



                      FORD BRAND AUGUST 2008 U.S. SALES
                      ---------------------------------

                              August       %           Year-To-Date    %
                              ------                   ------------
                          2008     2007  Change      2008       2007 Change
                          ----     ----  ------      ----       ---- ------

    Crown Victoria       3,930    3,340    17.7    35,695     42,668  -16.3
    Taurus               4,462    5,851   -23.7    40,478     48,284  -16.2
    Fusion               9,073   12,511   -27.5   107,603    100,553    7.0
    Focus               16,387   13,282    23.4   155,036    123,158   25.9
    Mustang              8,197   11,512   -28.8    73,961     99,537  -25.7
    GT                       0        0      NA         0        231 -100.0
                             -        -                 -        ---
      Ford Cars         42,049   46,496    -9.6   412,773    414,431   -0.4

    Flex                 2,010        0      NA     5,593          0     NA
    Edge                 9,962   10,165    -2.0    87,197     78,044   11.7
    Escape              14,025   11,960    17.3   116,511    116,605   -0.1
    Taurus X             1,670    4,863   -65.7    18,473     27,346  -32.4
                         -----    -----            ------     ------
      Ford Crossover
       Utility
       Vehicles         27,667   26,988     2.5   227,774    221,995    2.6

    Expedition           3,867    6,883   -43.8    39,627     65,386  -39.4
    Explorer             5,502   11,929   -53.9    60,841     97,845  -37.8
                         -----   ------            ------     ------
      Ford Sport
       Utility
       Vehicles          9,369   18,812   -50.2   100,468    163,231  -38.5

    F-Series            40,429   69,220   -41.6   359,971    481,146  -25.2
    Ranger               4,920    4,783     2.9    50,900     53,415   -4.7
    Econoline/Club
     Wagon               8,081   12,821   -37.0    93,802    118,866  -21.1
    Freestar                 0        0      NA         0      2,390 -100.0
    Low Cab Forward         55      266   -79.3       690      2,114  -67.4
    Heavy Trucks           518      896   -42.2     4,456      8,300  -46.3
                           ---      ---             -----      -----
      Ford Trucks and
       Vans             54,003   87,986   -38.6   509,819    666,231  -23.5
                        ------   ------           -------    -------

      Ford Brand       133,088  180,282   -26.2 1,250,834  1,465,888  -14.7



                     LINCOLN BRAND AUGUST 2008 U.S. SALES
                     ------------------------------------

                              August       %           Year-To-Date    %
                              ------                   ------------
                          2008     2007  Change      2008       2007 Change
                          ----     ----  ------      ----       ---- ------

    MKS                  2,374        0      NA     5,038          0     NA
    MKZ                  2,358    3,216   -26.7    23,336     22,948    1.7
    Town Car               672      855   -21.4    10,654     24,969  -57.3
    MKX                  2,651    3,421   -22.5    22,224     23,145   -4.0
    Navigator              923    2,163   -57.3    10,725     15,765  -32.0
    Mark LT                562      768   -26.8     3,276      5,858  -44.1
                           ---      ---             -----      -----

      Lincoln Brand      9,540   10,423    -8.5    75,253     92,685  -18.8



                     MERCURY BRAND AUGUST 2008 U.S. SALES
                     ------------------------------------

                              August       %            Year-To-Date   %
                              ------                   ------------
                          2008     2007  Change      2008       2007 Change
                          ----     ----  ------      ----       ---- ------

    Grand Marquis        2,182    2,245    -2.8    21,492     35,543  -39.5
    Sable                1,226    1,987   -38.3    12,928     14,814  -12.7
    Milan                1,816    3,013   -39.7    24,078     25,084   -4.0
    Mariner              2,609    2,939   -11.2    23,322     25,151   -7.3
    Mountaineer            560    2,112   -73.5     8,580     17,048  -49.7
    Monterey                 0        0      NA         0        700 -100.0
                             -        -                 -        ---

      Mercury Brand      8,393   12,296   -31.7    90,400    118,340  -23.6



                      VOLVO BRAND AUGUST 2008 U.S. SALES
                      ----------------------------------

                              August       %           Year-To-Date    %
                              ------                   ------------
                          2008     2007  Change      2008       2007 Change
                          ----     ----  ------      ----       ---- ------

    S40                    512    1,463   -65.0     7,715     13,513  -42.9
    V50                    100      211   -52.6     1,251      1,961  -36.2
    S60                    467    1,950   -76.1     7,187     13,529  -46.9
    S80                    576    1,320   -56.4     8,233      8,650   -4.8
    V70                    195      430   -54.7     2,531      2,512    0.8
    XC70                   772      870   -11.3     7,074      8,036  -12.0
    XC90                 1,175    2,556   -54.0    14,186     21,011  -32.5
    C70                    462      293    57.7     4,606      3,213   43.4
    C30                    410       26 1,476.9     3,191         51 6156.9
                           ---       --             -----         --

      Volvo Brand        4,669    9,119   -48.8    55,974     72,476  -22.8

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad all around. wow.

FLex is a FLop? i dont care if they will lease me one cheap next month. time for ford to whore out your new vehicles to me next month.

good to see escape gaining sales and crv losing them. its nice to see customers starting to wise up on that one.

in truth part of the problem is that Ford has too many high MSRP vehicles. no wonder sales tank if the fusion, escape and focus are the only affordable vehicles in the lineup.

MKs has gotten off to a decent start, i hear they are turning in less than 7 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brutal numbers. Mustang being down so far does not bode well for Challenger or Camaro.

Chris

Then again,the Mustang is in the 4th model year of a design without substantial changes, so I would expect it to be down, even without the economy and gas prices..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I can not get over the Volvo numbers... *cringe*

With all the recent attention given to our planet, you'd think Volvo would capitalize on that and show consumers how they're a more sustainable and progressive type of luxury car maker.

Volvo offers a 2.0 liter four-cylinder in their C30, S40, V50, and V70 everywhere else... why not in the US?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I don't understand why Volvo isn't doing better. It makes me want to buy one. They're very nice cars to begin with and they have great sales incentives right now. You can get a new S80 for a steal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
good to see escape gaining sales and crv losing them. its nice to see customers starting to wise up on that one.

Oh yes, they're wising up. It couldn't be the Escape's 30% fleet rate or the cash on the hood. No way!

I'm still waiting for the Rogue to destroy the CR-V as you predicted...... still waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yes, they're wising up. It couldn't be the Escape's 30% fleet rate or the cash on the hood. No way!

I'm still waiting for the Rogue to destroy the CR-V as you predicted...... still waiting.

crv is down what, 18%?

the market is waking up to the fact that the crv is an overpriced, underpowered gas hog with a cheap interior and a wussy exterior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8000+ for the Mustang is still a great number considering the economy and the car's age. I wouldn't start worrying about the Mustang until sales get below 5000 a month. The Mustang has had worse years in the past...I believe they only sold 80,000 in 1991.

Ford's numbers aren't pretty, but it was expected anyway. Stock prices actually went up today despite the news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
crv is down what, 18%?

the market is waking up to the fact that the crv is an overpriced, underpowered gas hog with a cheap interior and a wussy exterior.

You need some perspective. Last year's August was a record for CR-V sales (23,192), they sold more in that month than in any other month or since then. Last month sales of 19,866 is right around normal for the CR-V, actually it is on the higher side of the average. I invite you to view the sales records here, and you can see for yourself that the CR-V has averaged between 15k and 20k consistently since the new model was introduced in February 2007. January 2007, the last month of the last gen CR-V, was actually a record for the CR-V at 14,390. The CR-V's consistent sales show that it is still the strongest in the market. Last year's August was a freak month that saw an unusually high number of CR-V sales, and it made this month look bad even though it was actually excellent. I hope that gives you some perspective on your favorite cute ute. :cheers:

Just FYI, I strongly prefer the styling of the Escape to the CR-V, and if by a strange coincidence I had to purchase one of the two, it would be an easy decision based on styling alone. I wouldn't expect to enjoy either vehicle (I hate SUV's) so driving dynamics and interior quality would probably weigh little on my decision. The hybrid Escape also gets good mileage for one of these.

Link to post
Share on other sites
crv is down what, 18%?

the market is waking up to the fact that the crv is an overpriced, underpowered gas hog with a cheap interior and a wussy exterior.

Still didn't stop my mother from buying one. <_<

Just proves that any idiot with a CR membership can be fooled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of Aug'2007 sales hitting a record high, you'd think with $4 gas & a push for compact 4-cyl vehicles would allow the Honda CR-V to beat last year's numbers... Wouldn't you?

Not necessarily. Like I said, the CR-V sold on the higher side of its average last month, and it was actually an excellent month for it despite the percentage drop. There may have been incentives for the CR-V in August 2007 to drive the sales higher, and no incentives August 2008, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You need some perspective. Last year's August was a record for CR-V sales (23,192), they sold more in that month than in any other month or since then. Last month sales of 19,866 is right around normal for the CR-V, actually it is on the higher side of the average. I invite you to view the sales records here, and you can see for yourself that the CR-V has averaged between 15k and 20k consistently since the new model was introduced in February 2007. January 2007, the last month of the last gen CR-V, was actually a record for the CR-V at 14,390. The CR-V's consistent sales show that it is still the strongest in the market. Last year's August was a freak month that saw an unusually high number of CR-V sales, and it made this month look bad even though it was actually excellent. I hope that gives you some perspective on your favorite cute ute. :cheers:

Just FYI, I strongly prefer the styling of the Escape to the CR-V, and if by a strange coincidence I had to purchase one of the two, it would be an easy decision based on styling alone. I wouldn't expect to enjoy either vehicle (I hate SUV's) so driving dynamics and interior quality would probably weigh little on my decision. The hybrid Escape also gets good mileage for one of these.

having driven an 09 escape v6 i can attest that it is sedan like and a very nice vehicle. i have NOT driven a CRV but you wouldnt be able to get me to do so, its really a waste of money. if they would drop the price on it 5-7k, then i see it as being an ok vehicle. it simply is not worth what folks are paying for it. I have driven a RAV4 and its a joke. i don't loathe the CRV like I do the RAV. Mainly my disdain for the CRV is that its highway robbery, its a Kia Sportage with an H on the grille. The RAV is cheap and tinny and plasticky.

If one must really have the Asian brand cute ute, the forester is the classy one. You might be able to convince me its worth what folks are paying. The Outlander is the best of all of them though, cargo capacity, flexibility, tech, etc. The outlander is most appealing Asian cute ute and its not even close. So where the escape falls in all of this......better pricing and now the engine and handling are fixed. it has sync and sirius travel link. Send someone with 27k to look at a RAV4 or CRV and then have them drive an 09 Mariner like with the v6 6 speed and Voga pkg or something. its not going to take much to convince them what a real vehicle is. Honda should be ashamed of selling what amounts to a puffy hatchback with a slow powertrain for the highway robbery prices they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of Aug'2007 sales hitting a record high, you'd think with $4 gas & a push for compact 4-cyl vehicles would allow the Honda CR-V to beat last year's numbers... Wouldn't you?

truth is folks are finding out its a rip off as far as pricing goes and the fact that its not better or even as good as many competitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll preface my remarks by stating that I don't 'get' the crossover....I was fine when they simply provided wagon versions of normal cars.

That being said, if I'm grading the small x-overs, the Forrester and Escape are my recommendations in 09. The RAV & CRV are overpriced, the Subie & Escape still drive like cars---plus deals can be had on each that make them a strong value. (Although I think the previous Forrester is way more fun to drive)

The CRV exemplifies why having a strong brand rep means everything. There's little justification for its runaway success other than reputation. IMO, the Civic is a far better example of what makes Honda great--it IS a class-leading product with obvious appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
truth is folks are finding out its a rip off as far as pricing goes and the fact that its not better or even as good as many competitors.

If it is a rip off, folks certainly aren't finding out about it because sales are still as strong as they have ever been.

The CRV exemplifies why having a strong brand rep means everything. There's little justification for its runaway success other than reputation.

Do you really think the brand name has accounted for the current generation CR-V selling 50%~ higher than the previous gen every month since its intro? If it is all about brand name, then why didn't the previous gen CR-V sell at 15-20k per month every month as opposed to 10-15k? Did Honda make their badge especially shiny on the new model to attract 5,000+ more buyers every single month?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll preface my remarks by stating that I don't 'get' the crossover....I was fine when they simply provided wagon versions of normal cars.

That being said, if I'm grading the small x-overs, the Forrester and Escape are my recommendations in 09. The RAV & CRV are overpriced, the Subie & Escape still drive like cars---plus deals can be had on each that make them a strong value. (Although I think the previous Forrester is way more fun to drive)

The CRV exemplifies why having a strong brand rep means everything. There's little justification for its runaway success other than reputation. IMO, the Civic is a far better example of what makes Honda great--it IS a class-leading product with obvious appeal.

i agree with like everything you said (the civic plug is a stretch :) ) the CRV IMO is one of the biggest public con jobs on the market right now. buy a kia sportage and save 10 grand, no diff i say.

you realize subaru is leasing the forester for virtually nil down and under 250 a mo right now? AWD included......anyone shopping crv's would do well to look at a forester first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has any love for the VUE? Granted, its a heavy little piggy but that helps it feel solid. I guess it would be tough to put the 4 cyl. VUE up against much because it is woefully under powered for its weight class but I would put the V6 version up against anything. Plus, you can get some smoking deals on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree with like everything you said (the civic plug is a stretch :) ) the CRV IMO is one of the biggest public con jobs on the market right now. buy a kia sportage and save 10 grand, no diff i say.

you realize subaru is leasing the forester for virtually nil down and under 250 a mo right now? AWD included......anyone shopping crv's would do well to look at a forester first.

My cousin recently bought a CR-V EX, and I thought it was a solid choice. The styling is fugly, but it's practical, well-assembled, and I liked the tan interior. The rear wheelwells don't intrude on the rear seats and doors, like they do on a Sportage or Escape, so it's easier to put in a child seat. Her previous car was a Volvo 960, so she doesn't mind wagons - it's just that there aren't many to choose from.

And it's really not all that expensive. Her EX FWD model (moonroof, alloys, 6-disc CD) was $23K, and she got $1500 off MSRP and 1.9% APR. Real-world pricing for an '09 Escape XLT 2.5L FWD is actually higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody has any love for the VUE? Granted, its a heavy little piggy but that helps it feel solid. I guess it would be tough to put the 4 cyl. VUE up against much because it is woefully under powered for its weight class but I would put the V6 version up against anything. Plus, you can get some smoking deals on them.

vue sales were quite good last month. weight is the new vue's only downside. its much more solid than the crawling recreational vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My cousin recently bought a CR-V EX, and I thought it was a solid choice. The styling is fugly, but it's practical, well-assembled, and I liked the tan interior. The rear wheelwells don't intrude on the rear seats and doors, like they do on a Sportage or Escape, so it's easier to put in a child seat. Her previous car was a Volvo 960, so she doesn't mind wagons - it's just that there aren't many to choose from.

And it's really not all that expensive. Her EX FWD model (moonroof, alloys, 6-disc CD) was $23K, and she got $1500 off MSRP and 1.9% APR. Real-world pricing for an '09 Escape XLT 2.5L FWD is actually higher.

hard to fully believe that since the 09 escape fwd v6 i drove a couple months ago was reduced down below 23k. and it had a moonroof, but not leather. looks like honda has had to resort to dumping cars too now like everyone else.

lol if i had been that lady i would have found a nice clean one year old volvo wagon.........wouldnt have cost much more

Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree with like everything you said (the civic plug is a stretch :) ) the CRV IMO is one of the biggest public con jobs on the market right now. buy a kia sportage and save 10 grand, no diff i say.

you realize subaru is leasing the forester for virtually nil down and under 250 a mo right now? AWD included......anyone shopping crv's would do well to look at a forester first.

CRV is 'right place, right time' sales success...

I did plug the Forrester too! (Price being 1 reason.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody has any love for the VUE? Granted, its a heavy little piggy but that helps it feel solid. I guess it would be tough to put the 4 cyl. VUE up against much because it is woefully under powered for its weight class but I would put the V6 version up against anything. Plus, you can get some smoking deals on them.

One of my sons likes the VUE, but I don't.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a rip off, folks certainly aren't finding out about it because sales are still as strong as they have ever been.

Do you really think the brand name has accounted for the current generation CR-V selling 50%~ higher than the previous gen every month since its intro? If it is all about brand name, then why didn't the previous gen CR-V sell at 15-20k per month every month as opposed to 10-15k? Did Honda make their badge especially shiny on the new model to attract 5,000+ more buyers every single month?

I drive a 2004 CRV every day.

The engine is refined but my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque.

With just two of us in the car, power is barely adequate. With 4 people, luggage and A/C, power is grossly insufficient. The pushrod in the Equinox is much more powerful feeling.

Road noise is LOUD, this is one of my common complaints in all Hondas however.

60,000 miles and there are already rust spots around the rear door hinges. It's been garaged most of it's life.

It returned a paltry 23mpg over a 1,200 mile trek around PA, 95% highway driving. I had to keep it around 70mph out of necessity because any more than that and the engine would be screaming at 5,000rpm <but hey, it's a very refined 5,000rpm> just to make it up the mountains at 80mph. My 300hp Avalanche, never a slouch for power, with twice the weight did 19mpg on the trip to Camino's and back at extra legal speeds.

So... you're right, I can't imagine why anyone would buy another one other than brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I drive a 2004 CRV every day.

The engine is refined but my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque.

With just two of us in the car, power is barely adequate. With 4 people, luggage and A/C, power is grossly insufficient. The pushrod in the Equinox is much more powerful feeling.

Road noise is LOUD, this is one of my common complaints in all Hondas however.

60,000 miles and there are already rust spots around the rear door hinges. It's been garaged most of it's life.

It returned a paltry 23mpg over a 1,200 mile trek around PA, 95% highway driving. I had to keep it around 70mph out of necessity because any more than that and the engine would be screaming at 5,000rpm <but hey, it's a very refined 5,000rpm> just to make it up the mountains at 80mph. My 300hp Avalanche, never a slouch for power, with twice the weight did 19mpg on the trip to Camino's and back at extra legal speeds.

So... you're right, I can't imagine why anyone would buy another one other than brand.

Your experience might not be common, I don't know. Perhaps the CR-V is in disrepair in some way. I can't comment on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your experience might not be common, I don't know. Perhaps the CR-V is in disrepair in some way. I can't comment on it.

I've rebuilt cars in the past. I keep this car operating in top shape. The '04 CRV with AWD and automatic was rated at 25mpg highway.... and it's not like Honda's numbers back then weren't a bit over inflated.

It has 160hp at 6,000rpm and 162 ft/lbs at 3,600rpm. That right there is explanation enough for why it's screaming at 5,000rpm to get up a mountain at 80mph with it's 4-speed auto.

edit: My avalanche had 80,000 miles and NO rust when I sold it. It was never garaged because it just wouldn't fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've rebuilt cars in the past. I keep this car operating in top shape. The '04 CRV with AWD and automatic was rated at 25mpg highway.... and it's not like Honda's numbers back then weren't a bit over inflated.

It has 160hp at 6,000rpm and 162 ft/lbs at 3,600rpm. That right there is explanation enough for why it's screaming at 5,000rpm to get up a mountain at 80mph with it's 4-speed auto.

edit: My avalanche had 80,000 miles and NO rust when I sold it. It was never garaged because it just wouldn't fit.

AWD, higher elevation, uphill, loaded with people and cargo, 4-speed auto on the 2nd gen. That would certainly feel pretty sluggish, I would imagine. I wouldn't want to be in it. But then a RAV4, Escape, Vue, etc would suffer the same. They offer a V6 but in reality the large majority of people own the 4cyl models.

Honda's in the early 00's were known to have paint problems. I have heard that more than once at least. If there were thin spots, that would account for the rust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like I've said many times: there is a big difference between posted gas mileage and the real world. Honda engines don't have any power until they are wound WAAAY up - it's not like you're going to get 30 mpg at 6,000 rpm.

In fairness to Honda, though, you came out of an Avalanche where you were used to gobs of power. Your typical old lady who goes from her '96 Sunfire to a CR-V because her spawn have convinced her its Honda or nothing, is not going to have your experience. The engine is never going to drown out her Ray Coniff & the Singers on the AM radio because she will her CRV's engine will never see 2,800 rpm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I drive a 2004 CRV every day.

The engine is refined but my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque.

With just two of us in the car, power is barely adequate. With 4 people, luggage and A/C, power is grossly insufficient. The pushrod in the Equinox is much more powerful feeling.

Road noise is LOUD, this is one of my common complaints in all Hondas however.

60,000 miles and there are already rust spots around the rear door hinges. It's been garaged most of it's life.

It returned a paltry 23mpg over a 1,200 mile trek around PA, 95% highway driving. I had to keep it around 70mph out of necessity because any more than that and the engine would be screaming at 5,000rpm <but hey, it's a very refined 5,000rpm> just to make it up the mountains at 80mph. My 300hp Avalanche, never a slouch for power, with twice the weight did 19mpg on the trip to Camino's and back at extra legal speeds.

So... you're right, I can't imagine why anyone would buy another one other than brand.

I myself would MUCH rather have the Avi of the two...

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
AWD, higher elevation, uphill, loaded with people and cargo, 4-speed auto on the 2nd gen. That would certainly feel pretty sluggish, I would imagine. I wouldn't want to be in it. But then a RAV4, Escape, Vue, etc would suffer the same. They offer a V6 but in reality the large majority of people own the 4cyl models.

Honda's in the early 00's were known to have paint problems. I have heard that more than once at least. If there were thin spots, that would account for the rust.

4wd, same route, loaded with people and luggage, 4-speed auto, yet twice the weight, aerodynamics of a brick, twice the power, and about 10 times the utility, yet I still got 19mpg and it wasn't sluggish nor screaming up to 5,000rpm just to hit real world highway speeds. 2003 Avalanche.

I just looked up the 2007 CR-V. Power rating when from 160hp @ 6000rpm to 166hp @ 5800rpm and 162ft/lbs @ 3600rpm to 161ft/lbs @ 4200rpm! At the same time weight increased over 200lbs!! Sure... the '07 has a 5-speed, but they really need a 10 speed to keep it in the power band!

Of course the Equinox that everyone likes to poo on around here has 185hp @ 5200 RPM and 210ft/lbs @ 3800 RPM.</off topic>

The Escape I4 has 171hp @ 6000 RPM and 171ft/lbs @ 4500 RPM with a 6-speed and manages 28mpg.

The CRV sells on badge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like I've said many times: there is a big difference between posted gas mileage and the real world. Honda engines don't have any power until they are wound WAAAY up - it's not like you're going to get 30 mpg at 6,000 rpm.

In fairness to Honda, though, you came out of an Avalanche where you were used to gobs of power. Your typical old lady who goes from her '96 Sunfire to a CR-V because her spawn have convinced her its Honda or nothing, is not going to have your experience. The engine is never going to drown out her Ray Coniff & the Singers on the AM radio because she will her CRV's engine will never see 2,800 rpm.

but the tire noise will......

and you can't NOT hit 2,800rpm in a CRV.... not without causing an accident anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4wd, same route, loaded with people and luggage, 4-speed auto, yet twice the weight, aerodynamics of a brick, twice the power, and about 10 times the utility, yet I still got 19mpg and it wasn't sluggish nor screaming up to 5,000rpm just to hit real world highway speeds. 2003 Avalanche.

I just looked up the 2007 CR-V. Power rating when from 160hp @ 6000rpm to 166hp @ 5800rpm and 162ft/lbs @ 3600rpm to 161ft/lbs @ 4200rpm! At the same time weight increased over 200lbs!! Sure... the '07 has a 5-speed, but they really need a 10 speed to keep it in the power band!

Of course the Equinox that everyone likes to poo on around here has 185hp @ 5200 RPM and 210ft/lbs @ 3800 RPM.</off topic>

The Escape I4 has 171hp @ 6000 RPM and 171ft/lbs @ 4500 RPM with a 6-speed and manages 28mpg.

The CRV sells on badge.

It gets so tiring responding to posts like these. You're using your own personal experience of an '04 CR-V to make a judgment on the '09 CR-V versus '09 Escape. What if I tried to make a comparison of the '09 Malibu and '09 Accord based on my experiences with an '04 Malibu? Your posts are filled with exaggerations which further reduces their credibility. It doesn't matter what vehicle is actually better (again, I don't care, the Escape with 2.5L and manly styling would probably suit me better if I were to ever even consider a vehicle in this segment), just stop making such incredibly baseless arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I drive a 2004 CRV every day.

The engine is refined but my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque.

With just two of us in the car, power is barely adequate. With 4 people, luggage and A/C, power is grossly insufficient. The pushrod in the Equinox is much more powerful feeling.

Road noise is LOUD, this is one of my common complaints in all Hondas however.

60,000 miles and there are already rust spots around the rear door hinges. It's been garaged most of it's life.

It returned a paltry 23mpg over a 1,200 mile trek around PA, 95% highway driving. I had to keep it around 70mph out of necessity because any more than that and the engine would be screaming at 5,000rpm <but hey, it's a very refined 5,000rpm> just to make it up the mountains at 80mph. My 300hp Avalanche, never a slouch for power, with twice the weight did 19mpg on the trip to Camino's and back at extra legal speeds.

So... you're right, I can't imagine why anyone would buy another one other than brand.

honda quality. bank on it.

c'mon, lets get real. the only reason the CRV got popular was women and effiminate male buyers. Subaru defectors, Accord defectors, granola, flannel, fluffy psyches, most CRV buyers (while all the sales count and all of that) are in a bunch that definitely you would not consider having 'discerning tastes in automobiles' much less possess the ability to separate analytical skills from blind sided emotion and follower mentality.

low mpg on big honda four bangers is not a surprise. after i got the aztek, i consulted a coworker who had just got an element. he was getting 20-23 most of the time. no torque so i suppose you gotta buzz it. a current cowrker confirmed the same, not ever above 25, in the low the mid twenties HIGHWAY. my 500 has been seeing near 23 in stop and go this summer FCOL. new taurus is supposed to get equal or better with 100hp more than the whirring little CRV. why can't any of these cute utes from Asia get any decent mpg? they just had a Kia Rondo long term wrap up on motorweek web site....it could barely crack 20 mpg.

Edited by regfootball
Link to post
Share on other sites
It gets so tiring responding to posts like these. You're using your own personal experience of an '04 CR-V to make a judgment on the '09 CR-V versus '09 Escape. What if I tried to make a comparison of the '09 Malibu and '09 Accord based on my experiences with an '04 Malibu? Your posts are filled with exaggerations which further reduces their credibility. It doesn't matter what vehicle is actually better (again, I don't care, the Escape with 2.5L and manly styling would probably suit me better if I were to ever even consider a vehicle in this segment), just stop making such incredibly baseless arguments.

What exaggerations? Want me to take a video of the CRV screaming uphill at 5,000rpm? I notice it because it annoys me so much to drive it.

As for comparing an '08 Malibu to an '08 Accord using an '04 Malibu's numbers..... sure... if the numbers on the '08 Malibu are worse than those on the '04 like the CRV's..... go for it.

Who here doesn't think that a heavier vehicle with less torque at a higher RPM will perform worse than a lighter vehicle with more torque at a lower rpm? Sorry man, the 5-speed isn't going to help you that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and after all my rants about the CRV.... I do kinda like it. Around town it's a fairly refined vehicle and handles all my apartment maintenance duties. It's much more efficient than the '96 Roadmaster Estate.

but it is not good for much more than an around suburbia scamp..... which is where I suspect 90% of these vehicles spend their time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What exaggerations? Want me to take a video of the CRV screaming uphill at 5,000rpm? I notice it because it annoys me so much to drive it.

As for comparing an '08 Malibu to an '08 Accord using an '04 Malibu's numbers..... sure... if the numbers on the '08 Malibu are worse than those on the '04 like the CRV's..... go for it.

Who here doesn't think that a heavier vehicle with less torque at a higher RPM will perform worse than a lighter vehicle with more torque at a lower rpm? Sorry man, the 5-speed isn't going to help you that much.

I can't attest to the new or old CR-V, however peak numbers do not tell the whole story, you should know that. Take the new TSX for example, which despite a hefty 200~ lbs weight gain and no increase in displacement or gears, manages to be just as fast in timed acceleration runs as the old model, and faster in part throttle low/mid range rpm driving.

As far as exaggerations. I can't speak to the driving experience of the 2nd gen (or new) CR-V, but here are a few quick ones just scrolling down.

"and you can't NOT hit 2,800rpm in a CRV.... not without causing an accident anyway"

"twice the weight, aerodynamics of a brick, twice the power, and about 10 times the utility" - 4 right there

"my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque"

"300hp Avalanche"

None of these serve to help prove an argument. That's all I am saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't attest to the new or old CR-V, however peak numbers do not tell the whole story, you should know that. Take the new TSX for example, which despite a hefty 200~ lbs weight gain and no increase in displacement or gears, manages to be just as fast in timed acceleration runs as the old model, and faster in part throttle low/mid range rpm driving.

As far as exaggerations. I can't speak to the driving experience of the 2nd gen (or new) CR-V, but here are a few quick ones just scrolling down.

"and you can't NOT hit 2,800rpm in a CRV.... not without causing an accident anyway"

"twice the weight, aerodynamics of a brick, twice the power, and about 10 times the utility" - 4 right there

"my grandmother's broken hip can offer more torque"

"300hp Avalanche"

None of these serve to help prove an argument. That's all I am saying.

Tell ya what, I'm heading out to run some errands in an hour or so and I'll keep the tac under 2,800 rpm the whole time and see how long it takes before my BF smacks me.

An Avalanche is about twice the weight, has about twice the power, has the aerodynamics of a brick, can haul 7 times the payload weight / haul large appliances / 4 x 8 sheets of plywood / has built in coolers.... there 10.

You're right about the grandmother exaggeration.... I'm sure the CRV can at least equal the torque of my grandmother's broken hip :neenerneener:

300hp Avalanche...... where's the exaggeration here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often noticed that all of the small utes suffer from the same MPG issue.

I'm partial to a real car, and that's really where Asian brands shine, IMO. I've had the (dis) pleasure of driving almost every small 'ute out there---most every car---and there are certain areas of expertise that each country of origin does well--We do great trucks, Germany does high line sedans, et al...the small CUV is simply a platypus of the automotive kingdom that no-one does extraordinarily well--it's impossible to do so, given the conflicting design priorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've often noticed that all of the small utes suffer from the same MPG issue.

I'm partial to a real car, and that's really where Asian brands shine, IMO. I've had the (dis) pleasure of driving almost every small 'ute out there---most every car---and there are certain areas of expertise that each country of origin does well--We do great trucks, Germany does high line sedans, et al...the small CUV is simply a platypus of the automotive kingdom that no-one does extraordinarily well--it's impossible to do so, given the conflicting design priorities.

I can't see myself in a CUV or a truck-based SUV...if I get another SUV down the road, I want a real one..either another Grand Cherokee, a Wrangler, or a Defender (too bad you can't get new ones here). Maybe a used Range Rover Sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've often noticed that all of the small utes suffer from the same MPG issue.

I'm partial to a real car, and that's really where Asian brands shine, IMO. I've had the (dis) pleasure of driving almost every small 'ute out there---most every car---and there are certain areas of expertise that each country of origin does well--We do great trucks, Germany does high line sedans, et al...the small CUV is simply a platypus of the automotive kingdom that no-one does extraordinarily well--it's impossible to do so, given the conflicting design priorities.

I would agree.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see myself in a CUV or a truck-based SUV...if I get another SUV down the road, I want a real one..either another Grand Cherokee, a Wrangler, or a Defender (too bad you can't get new ones here). Maybe a used Range Rover Sport.

What we need is a Medium duty SUV with real diesel power. 23 m.p.g., enough tourque to haul a real camping trailer, easier to park than Oldsmoboi's Avi, etc.

But I'm dreaming, I think.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
What we need is a Medium duty SUV with real diesel power. 23 m.p.g., enough tourque to haul a real camping trailer, easier to park than Oldsmoboi's Avi, etc.

But I'm dreaming, I think.

Chris

Yes...that why I'm thinking of a Grand Cherokee diesel... it's the perfect size for me and can go off-road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Avi is surprisingly easy to park. I could maneuver it better than some smaller FWD cars.

Really....I'd have thought it was a real "tank" to park.

Was the avi ever available with Diesel?

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really....I'd have thought it was a real "tank" to park.

Was the avi ever available with Diesel?

Chris

Every review I've read of the Avi was that it road and drove like a much smaller vehicle. After my two years of ownership with it, I'd have to agree. It was far less cumbersome than the Roadmaster.

Unfortunately, has never been available with a diesel, but I hope that'll change when the new V8 diesel comes out. I still maintain that the Avi is the most versatile vehicle on the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Every review I've read of the Avi was that it road and drove like a much smaller vehicle. After my two years of ownership with it, I'd have to agree. It was far less cumbersome than the Roadmaster.

Unfortunately, has never been available with a diesel, but I hope that'll change when the new V8 diesel comes out. I still maintain that the Avi is the most versatile vehicle on the planet.

How was the visibility out the back? With the rear window inset like that, I would think it would be a challenge to parallel park or pull in or back out of parking spaces..

It's too bad Jeep didn't do something like the Avi... something smaller but with the same idea on a GC or Commander would have been really nice, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The side mirrors make up for it.

The thing that really "made" the Avi was it's ability to haul a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood fully protected from the weather but also allow you to carry 4 passengers with great comfort. Not at the same time.... but the ability to do either/or in a package smaller than a normal quad-cab pickup with an 8 foot bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The side mirrors make up for it.

The thing that really "made" the Avi was it's ability to haul a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood fully protected from the weather but also allow you to carry 4 passengers with great comfort. Not at the same time.... but the ability to do either/or in a package smaller than a normal quad-cab pickup with an 8 foot bed.

No doubt..quite flexible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...