Glad to hear this vehicle has improved. I agree that this is probably as much SUV as most people need on a day to day basis, and there is definitely no need to complain about those mileage numbers. I also think its one of the best looking small SUVs around (egad, when will Honda stop ugli-fying the CRV?)

All five passenger SUVs are pointless when you get to the bottom of it. However since America doesn't like station wagons, that's the only choice most people have if they want more cargo room than an average sedan but less bulk than a mini-van. I can count the amount of Passat, Jetta and Mazda6 station wagons I've seen on one finger. I myself like the Saab 9-3 SportCombi- I think I've seen two on the road- at most.

I think all these pretend suv's are pointless. This thing has none of the abilites of an true suv, so why buy it?

A Jetta wagon TDI is better in everyway and serves the same purpose.

Bring back the Focus wagon and put the hybrid system in it instead.

I have a 17 year-old station wagon. The gas mileage is in the 20's, it's paid for and insurance is cheap. I dread the day it dies.

What I need is something that is great on gas, holds 3 kids (2 in carseats/boosters) safely and can put dogs, etc. in the back.

I agree with firstwagon - bring back the Focus wagon and make it a hybrid.

What about a Prius Wagon? Or having Honda bring back the Accord Wagon (rare!) in a hybrid version.

Best would be a plug-in hybrid wagon but I'm likely dreaming for that.

Yeah, we have an older CR-V and it does everything a family of five (without car seats, or fatties) needs. I wouldn't specifically recommend a 1st-gen CR-V over its competitors, or a wagon - we simply got a good deal on it from a family friend. But that type of vehicle is great if the most demanding tasks you give it are IKEA or Home Depot runs, and camping.

It sounds like the Escape is an excellent vehicle. So why don't I see many on the road? I would say it's partly because the styling is outdated. I think Ford needs a redesign Escape for the Escape Hybrid to have a big chance of success.

PS: The Escape might look a bit outdated but the CR-V is just too ugly. I wonder why it sells at all! I know, I know, reliability and resale value of Honda, etc, but come on, the CR-V is ugly...... I'd choose an Escape any day, especially now that there is a great hybrid!

The above comments are a wonderful indication of the dichotomy the auto industry faces: While there are still die-hard fans of station wagons (and I swear the majority of them are rather verbose on auto blogs thus inflating their apparent numbers all out of proportion to their actual numbers), the average American car shopper wouldn't be caught dead in a station wagon.

That, and the mommy van, are the kiss-of-death in cars; seemingly showing just how practical and mundane you really are - you've become the human equivalent of sliced white bread, and are afraid that's how the rest of the world will treat you. Forget about dating that hot chick/dude you met at the bar last Friday night.

It's funny. The mini-van became popular as the alternative for those who wouldn't be caught dead in a station wagon. Fifteen years later, the SUV is the alternative for those wouldn't be caught dead in either a mini-van or a station wagon. Now the crossover is taking over, although more for gas costs than any other reason.

Wonder what's going to come along that going to put the SUV/crossover in the same undesirable classification as the mini-van and station wagon?

Make something too practical for too long, and eventually only the 'uncool' will willingly drive one.

Oh yeah, if it didn't come through by this point, add a bit of joking sarcasm to the above comment. It was intended. I'm another station wagon/five door junkie. I haul bicycles. I really want a yellow Mazda Protege 5 - it looks just like the Mavic neutral support vehicle running in the Tour de France.

To each their own definition of 'cool'.

Syke, great point! To me, it boils down to practicality and style. In general station wagons tend to be uglier than their sedan counterparts so I wouldn't buy one unless I really needed one. (On the other hand, I'd choose an ugle station wagon over an SUV unless I really needed the SUV capabilities.)

But some station wagons are clearly far better looking than the sedans. The Jetta and Passat wagons are a clear example. The Mazda 6 and 3 hatchbacks also look better than the sedans. If I needed a Jetta or a Passat, I wouldn't even look at the sedans.....they're just too ugly! That's why I'm puzzled that these wagons are not selling well!

You mention the Protege5. I own one! :) I was intent on buying the Protege sedan until I saw the Protege5: once I saw it, I lost all interest in the Protege sedan! I questioned why Mazda wasted their money manufacturing the sedan at all!

Karl - or webteam, if reading...

care to send me and email, I found something on your blogs that might be of concern.

or does anyone here know how to contact the web team for edmunds?

Blackadder,

The Escape sells pretty well and was just redesigned for 2008. Its a very fresh product that needed better powertrains. I'm not crazy about it but its a better overall product than the RAV4. Its interesting that no Japanese manufacturer has lauched a hybrid small SUV yet.

Why are there so many people here who say.... Here is a vehicle that fits my needs perfectly. But it's an suv, not a station wagon so I'm not interested.

Then turn around and complain that a station wagon would fit most people's needs, but they're stupid for wanting an SUV instead.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Really, they're more the same than the diehard station wagon lovers will admit. A CRV is close enough to a Civic/Accord wagon that to complain there is no Civic/Accord wagon is stupid. Is the handling worse... maybe... but what percentage of station wagon drivers were really pushing it anyway? The heightened driving position is preferable to most. And the gas mileage is close to a wash.

Get over yourselves. Or at least quit telling other people to stop doing what you are (buying a car based on theoretical preference, not practical application).

This looks good. Go Ford. All we need now is the rear discs back, and put cruise on base models (same for Mazda).

Don't forget a telescoping steering wheel bepperb. Forgot that in my original post, but that should basically be a standard item on any car costing more than $15K in today's world

Are you saying the CRV gets almost as good mileage as the Civic? It's not even close.

A true Civic wagon would be far superior and much cheaper.

Some of us just don't like settling for a compromise just to follow the latest trend.

firstwagon,

A Civic wagon wouldn't have the same cargo capacity as a CRV. The CRV has a max cargo capacity of 73 cubic feet and gets 20/26mpg. Let's compare to other non-crossovers/SUVs of similar cargo capacity:

Saab 9-5 73cuft 17/26mpg
Dodge Magnum RT 72cuft 15/23mpg
Volvo V70 71cuft 16/24mpg
Mazda5 71cuft 21/27mpg

Dear all wagon crazy people,
Wagons are not better than small SUVs/CUVs. Do you know how many wagons hold as much as a Rav4/CRV/Escape and get better fuel economy that you can buy today? Two. Jetta sport wagon and Chevy HHR. Their fuel economy is on slightly better. And if you can put a diesel in a jetta wagon, you can put one in an escape.

So what is the difference. Wagons handle better, and small SUVs are more comfortable. Not in every case, but being able to sit up right is more comfortable than sitting low in a wagon. Plus, you can take an Escape pretty far off-road.

So why do American's by these small SUVs and not wagons? Because they prefer comfort over handling.

> So why do Americans by these small SUVs and not wagons?
> Because they prefer comfort over handling.

Bingo!!! Personally, I dislike a more upright seating position (didn't much like the seating position and seat-steering wheel-armrest geometry in the non-hybrid Escape that I had as a rental a couple of weeks ago, but it did fit all my passengers and stuff and haul me us over mountains...)

But then again, I'm not American :-P

7driver: just to play devil's advocate, but how many of the 73 cubes are real-world useful -- ie, because the CRV has a short, but tall, cargo area as opposed to the true wagons you list?

"Are you saying the CRV gets almost as good mileage as the Civic? It's not even close.

A true Civic wagon would be far superior and much cheaper."

Do you mean a Civic hatch? Otherwise the size difference alone would make that an invalid comparison. Not to mention the discrepency in engine size.

If one were to say, make a Civic wagon with the cargo space of a CRV, and put the 2.4 liter engine in it, it would have the exact same mileage as a CRV because it would be a CRV!

If you're talking about hatchbacks, not wagons, than you have me onboard. Or a "civic wagon" that is significantly smaller than a CRV. But that's not the same thing, so let's not pretend all the people who buy Escapes or CRV's can magically fit into something smaller.

One interesting note, I saw a concept small SUV / Wagon based on the Fit I thought was interesting. It actually sounds like something that might fit your needs well... civic mileage with more space inside.

"Why are there so many people here who say.... Here is a vehicle that fits my needs perfectly. But it's an suv, not a station wagon so I'm not interested."

Bepperb, you're missing the point. I've already praised the Escape Hybrid and if I were on the market for an SUV it'd be high on my list.

All I'm saying is that in all, I prefer wagons because of the style and better driving dynamics, as well as sedan-like economy.

"Its interesting that no Japanese manufacturer has lauched a hybrid small SUV yet."

Honda says they wont build a hyrbid SUV as they think the hybrid drivetrain will see maximum benefits in a compact/sub-compact car. They also want to make hybrid options more affordable. In the next year or so Honda will have 3 hybrid small cars, the Civic, the Fit and a dedicated hybrid which all are or will be affordable. With the recent switch to smaller cars I can see why Honda doesnt offer a hybrid SUV.

I think Honda will concentrate more on offering clean diesels for their larger heavier vehicles, and vehicles like the Acura TSX and the Accord.
The i-CDTi V6 and 4cyl offerings should be interesting.

I quite often see the observation, as Karl makes here, that extra weight makes it more difficult to achieve a good ride. The opposite is actually the case.

A light vehicle has little resistance to being moved: it will therefore bounce over bumps etc. more readily than a heavier one. So that's the first point in favour of a heavier vehicle for ride comfort.

The second is that the difference between the unladen weight of a light vehicle and its laden weight is generally far more than the difference between unladen and laden weights for a heavier vehicle, making it harder to choose spring and damper rates for the lighter vehicle which work at both extremes. Four people weighing, say, 800lb between them add 33.3% to a 2400 lb car, but only 16.7% to the weight of a 4,800 lb SUV.

I drive a CUV because I have chronic back pain.
A CUV doesn't make me sit on the floor like a wagon.
Karl, tell your mother to drive the Ford GT as her daily driver.

I drive a CUV because I have acid reflux.
A CUV doesn't make me lay back in the seat and cause my chest to burn on the road, especially at road bumps.

I drive a CUV because it saves gas over a minivan.
A minivan has ample space that I'll never use. A minivan just sucks more gas.

I drive a CUV instead of a mini-minivan because it is way bigger than a mini-minivan like the Mazda5. (I test drove the Mazda5 too!)

I drive a CUV because I live in a city, where the roads have potholes like wells to the center of the earth, and stupidly designed road ridges and dips that cause underbody damage. And those cost big money to fix.

Do you people have any more questions?

And I want my next CUV to have a hybrid turbodiesel engine. With a $5000 discount thank you.

It'd just be nice of those of us who like low-slung seating positions and a curb weight of 500 lbs. less had the option of choosing a wagon. Your reasons for wanting a CUV are valid, but they don't apply to all of us.

On another note, I think the new CR-V is much more attractive than the Escape, and apparently there are enough other weirdos out there who agree and are giving the CR-V a lot of success. To me, the Escape's front fascia looks like a dog's face in the same way as the Element, and its boxiness is passe. The CR-V takes after the Lexus RX, which is possibly the original un-boxy crossover. (I hate the RX because it's the most slowly-driven vehicle on the roads in my area, but I think the styling was a stroke of genius.)

For those of you touting the Jetta wagon, it only holds 67cu-ft to the CRV's 73, has 3 less cu-ft luggage space than the CRV's 35.7, runs a half an inch deficit in headroom, and is short 2 inches shoulder room in front and 3 inches in the rear.

The Jetta does get 21/29mpg instead of CRV's 20/27mpg, though.

"If one were to say, make a Civic wagon with the cargo space of a CRV, and put the 2.4 liter engine in it, it would have the exact same mileage as a CRV because it would be a CRV!"

Why?

Just extend the roof line back to the bumper and you would have the around the same useable cargo space as the CRV (more floor space but less height) and still seat the same 4.5 people.

Weight gain would be maybe 100 lbs which would still be 700 lbs less then a CRV ( no need for a 2.4)and with far less drag due to the lower profile. It would still beat the CRV by the same 6 mpg as the Civic sedan.(I used the 2wd CRV to be fair).

I can understand people with poor health finding it easier to get in and out of a CUV (that's why my Mom drives a minivan even though she lives alone). Being more comfortable or being forced to lay back in the seat doesn't make sense though. If you want to sit up straight, move your seatback up.

"being forced to lay back in the seat doesn't make sense though. If you want to sit up straight, move your seatback up."

Some of us call that piece of metal over the top of the car, the "roof". Or maybe the "ceiling".

Just a reminder:

"Midsized CUV" 109+ cu ft passenger. (Ex: Murano)
"Large sedan" 107+ cu ft passenger. (Ex: Avalon)

"Compact CUV" 97-108 cu ft passenger. (Ex: CR-V, Rav4, Escape)
"Midsized sedan/wagon" 97-106 cu ft passenger. (Ex: Mazda6, Passat, Camry. 106 being the Accord.)

"Compact sedan/wagon" 92-97 cu ft passenger. (Ex: Civic, Focus, Jetta. 97 being the Sentra.)

Smooshing 2 arguments in one is unproductive.
Stop smooshing
1. "buy a smaller car" with
2. "buy a Wagon instead of a CUV".

Well of course if I buy a size class smaller, I'd get better mpg.
How does that help the wagon argument? Break it up.

Better yet, don't trust the numbers.
Spend that $10.00 USD and go to your next local auto show.

Sit in the big, luxurious Honda CR-V.
Then it'll be hard to become unspoiled and return to your compact car.
The cubbies everywhere! The material quality! The utility!

Sure the outside looks like a bulldog smashed into a concrete wall, but get inside!

I find it irritating that folks think a wagon easily equates to (and / or trumps) CUVs in utility and practicality too. While I'd love to have a wagon instead of a sedan, it still wouldn't replace the usefullness of the SUV / CUV, primarily because, even with the same amount of interior volume, the volume isn't as friendly for my use.

What I mean is simply this- the same issue I have with my 08 Malibu's trunk- it's HUGE, but SHALLOW. I can fit a LOT of stuff in it, so long as that stuff actually makes it through the opening. Most wagons I've ever been in suffer from the same problem. Basically, anything that I need to carry that I couldn't put in the sedan probably is too tall for a trunk, and likely might be too tall for the wagon. Not everything, but enough that I find the taller, more squared off volume of the CUV / SUV to generally useful in a greater percentage of tasks than the wagons. And while the seating position being up high isn't all that far up my list of priorities, the added height of the CUVs that so benefits them for cargo-friendliness brings with it the nicety of improved visual positioning and comfort.

Win-win.

If I had my druthers though, I'd like a well styled Malibu LTZ wagon (preferably not losing more than 1 mpg combined as a penalty) along with a decent crossover SUV for the stuff that really won't fit in the shortish back of a wagon. (For what it's worth, this is the same reason some folks buy trucks instead of either CUVs or wagons). I'd have a wagon instead of a sedan now, but most wagons that I'd consider are priced quite a bit too high (another current advantage of the CUVs here in the US, anyway).

I realize that enthusasists love any number of Ultra-performance, road-hugging go-carts (be it Audi R8, Lotus Elise, etc.) that truly perform well on race tracks and perfect roads, and in thos environments can be very entertaining.

However, once you're out in the real world, and have to haul people/stuff, or face pothole craters or speed bumps, or rain/snow soaked roads, those go-carts just don't cut it.

Even though the Escape's an old design, it sounds like (as with Focus) Ford is trying to get the most out of it wrt its Hybrid version.

And btw, Chevrolet recently __had__ a wagon, an Open/Saab design called the Malibu MAXX, which could have been a winner had GM given it the '08 'Bu's improvements, tweaked its looks and kept its price reasonable. But Chevy called the Maxx quits in '07.

"Chevy called the Maxx quits in '07."

As did Ford with the Focus wagon. People in automotive forums talk up wagons, but they don't sell.