2007 Honda CR-V

horatio

Thanks for telling us Joe, I am heading to the dealership tomorrow!!!

horatio

Well, I went straight to the dealership on Lankershim Blvd here in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, but no CRV-V's yet...They said maybe in 2 weeks.

bodble2

LOL!

Yeah, all I want is that 166hp I4 monster motor! :P

isellhondas

I was just asking because I was curious.

I guess time will tell. As far as I'm concerned (for now, anyway)the drawbacks would exceed the benefits.

isellhondas

Say whatever you want but I have never felt our 2003 CRV was underpowered. It's more then ample for me.

Maybe if I had to pass trucks on two lane highways I would feel differently.

kyfdx

Maybe if I had to pass trucks on two lane highways I would feel differently.


I don't have any trouble doing that in my '02...

More power is always nice, but the GEN II isn't lacking power... something that couldn't be said for the Gen I, especially pre-'99.. I had a '98 5-speed, and that car was slooooowwwww (but, fun to row the gears.. no complaints).

Diesel? Not sure I'd buy one, but I would definitely consider it, if in the market for another CR-V..

stevedebi

"LOL!

Yeah, all I want is that 166hp I4 monster motor!"

For the record, I think that the I4 is sufficient for the CR-V, and preferrable. Keep in mind that the proposed diesel is also an I4, and that (if Honda wanted) the current I4 could be bumped up to 200 HP.

bodble2

But trying passing trucks going uphill! And it was noisy, to boot.

The Gen 1 was slooooowwwww (I had a '97), Gen II was merely slooww!

bodble2

"I think that the I4 is sufficient for the CR-V"

No doubt. At least for probably 75% of the typical buyer. But I never felt that manufacturer should just aim for "sufficient". Seems to imply mediocrity. To look at it another way, the I4 is "sufficient" for the Accord, as is the I4 for the RAV4, and for the Camry, and the Sonata....and so on, and so on. But lo and behold, there are V6 options for them all!

ateixeira

For me the answer would be RANGE.

15.3 gallons is a pretty small tank if you're getting, say, 22 mpg or so. You have to fill up before you can drive 336.6 miles.

40 mpg for a diesel is optimistic, but let's say it can only manage 32 mpg. That's still a range of 489.6 miles. Plus, that gives you more time to price-shop and offset the 10 cents or so extra you pay around here as well.

You can go a lot farther on the same tank, basically. Fill up a lot less often.

-juice

isellhondas

I guess.

Of course when you work five miles from home like I do, range isn't a big deal. Using Diesel, range is important because diesel can be hard to find.

The oil companies REALLY rape us on diesel! It should sell for half the price of gasoline and so that's another reason I'm knind anti diesel.

ateixeira

It's taxed at a much higher rate than gas, so blame the government for that.

The extra cost per gallon is an issue, but like I said, you can travel 50% farther looking for cheap diesel. Just fill up if you're under half a tank and you go by a cheap diesel station, odds are you'll average more than the range of a gas engine anyway!

-juice

kyfdx

Range is pretty crappy.... 300 miles and you better be looking...

Diesel is available at 95% of the stations in my area... Just the other day, $2.23 for diesel, $2.14 for unleaded regular...

I'd say there is enough power for 95% of people.... If you live in the mountains, and you carry four adults, then maybe you'd need more... but, otherwise? No problems...

Now, if your preferred cruising speed is 90 mph... then you might have a case.. :surprise:

bodble2

"..if your preferred cruising speed is 90 mph..."

Guilty, your Honor!

isellhondas

Availability must vary widely!

Here in the Seattle area stations are few and far between and diesel is more expensive than gasoline by quite a margin.

ateixeira

At home it's about 10-20 cents more, but it's funny, along major highways, especially I-95, diesel prices are cheaper. It just depends, I guess.

Any how, I'm sure the break-even point for the extra amount the diesel would cost is just a couple of years, far sooner than any hybrids. And you enjoy 50% more range.

-juice

isellhondas

OK, thanks for that.

I don't know how much more the diesels will cost so it's hard to predict the breakeven point.

And, it's pretty unclear when if ever we will see any.

stevedebi

"But trying passing trucks going uphill! And it was noisy, to boot."

I have done that many times in my 2003. No problems, though you have to floor the accelerator to get the vehicle to downshift. :shades:

The engine does put out some noise at speed, I agree with you there. But it's a sweet sound to me...

stevedebi

"40 mpg for a diesel is optimistic, but let's say it can only manage 32 mpg. That's still a range of 489.6 miles. "

I have gotten 31 in my 2003 @ 65 MPH (high altitudes - I still think the CR-V is better above 4000 feet in elevation). So I don't really think 40 MPG is out of range at the same speeds. Perhaps 36 at 80 MPH. Remember they can gear the diesel into lower RPMs, because of the torque range coming on strong at low RPMs, and the engine being proposed being 2.2 rather than 2.4 liters.

Can you say - 600 mile range? :surprise:

Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter to me, my 7 year old has about a 30 mile range between bathroom breaks... or should I say "bathroom brakes"... :mad:

thegraduate

Then I'm not sure you should be shopping/driving small Sport-Utes!

wellresearched

There were about a dozen or so CRV 07's in the back lot of a local dealer. So I spent my lunch hour checking them out.

The doors were unlocked, so I opened it up and sat in it.

First impression:
This vehicle has almost nothing in common with the CRV I own.

The rounded back and side windows remind me of the Taurus/Sable station wagon.There are HUGE blind spots.

Although I know (from this board) the interior is not smaller than the previous model, it "felt" much smaller.

The front bumper does not look as bad in person as it did in
the pictures; however, the rear looks worse. I can't imagine carrying the same items in this vehicle as I do in my own. Couldn't... because the rear window doesn't open.

There were three of us in the lot. Two of us drove there in CRV's. We talked. Both of us like our vehicles. Neither of us or the third guy were in any danger of buying this vehicle.

This is NOT an entry level car. There were no LX's on the lot. Including taxes, the vehicle is closer to 30K than 25K.I know I should have written it down, but I did not. Nonetheless,I think many may take the small $$ step up and buy the Pilot.

It's just not a CRV but some morphed object that is neither a SUV or a station wagon...or a sedan.

Also I do not see this vehicle as a "chick" car
It looks like a smaller version of a Lexus.

I WANTED to like this CRV. It is a different vehicle now. Many will like it....it is a HONDA...but it won't be mine.

isellhondas

A model get's changed...

" Oh, it's SO much better!"

" Why did Honda take a good thing and screw it up?"

Funny, sales always seem to increase.

I hope this isn't an exception!

lzc

>>I think that the I4 is sufficient for the CR-V . . . "

Sufficient. What's the matter with you? You must not be an American. No true, blue American is ever satisfied with merely sufficient. We what excess, and plenty of it. Dependence on foreign oil, war, Middle East, who cares? Give me power, more power.

Sheesh! Americans grow more wimpy day by day. . . . . . .-g-

ilijabmw

I still cannot, I mean CANNOT, get over the fact why Honda has introduced this vehicle... In my opinion, it is the most unappealing SUV in the Honda line-up.

They are even targeting this SUV at women. Don't women like to drive cute cars? ie: the RAV4 maybe?

It is just hideous.




I don't think I will ever like this new redesign.

thegraduate

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and the looks of the new CR-V do seem a bit polarizing. I didn't like it at first, but it has really grown on me; especially the rear 3/4 of this car. Looks really nice.

isellhondas

Some people thought the Gen 2 CRV's were ugly too and we sure sold a ton of them!

For a lot of shoppers, the way a car looks is far less important than the whole picture.

I am one of those people.

joecarnut

horatio,

I saw another truckload today on the north bound 5 frwy in LA area.
So on the way home I stopped at Norm Reeves in West Covina and asked them if they had any and he said they can't show them until the 28th. (I asked to go see them in the back)
He said every dealer will probably have at least two in stock or more.
Take it for what its worth as this was a salesman telling me this.

bodble2

All I know is, if I were in the market for a vehicle of this type, I would ask myself, why should I pick the new CR-V over the RAV4? The RAV matches it in safety, plus a couple of other gadgets such as hill-descent control. Certainly no worse in terms of luxury or amenities. Not a huge difference in utility. RAV also has a I4 for the economy-minded. Plus a smokin' V6 if I'm so inclined. And while the RAV doesn't have avant-garde styling, it is attractive (albeit in a generic kind of way), fresh and comtemporary, without being controversial. And it still looks like an SUV!

explorerx4

wow! i actually agree with you!

explorerx4

from the pictures i've seen, the only one to get the 'd' pillar right is mitsubishi with the new outlander. next is the rav4. the rest of the pack are way ugly. not just picking on honda.

turbocrv

I found this pricing at "The temple of the VTEC.net"



2WD LX $21,195
4WD LX $22,395
2WD EX $23,445
4WD EX $24,645
2WD EX-L $25,395
4WD EX-L $26,595
4WD EX-L w/NAVI $28,595

All prices include destination charge.

thegraduate

So, basically the same price as 4-cylinder Accord models(the 2WD models).

Accord pricing (w/Auto and w/o destination charges) are quite similar;

LX - $20,925 ($200 less)
EX - $23,350 ($95 more)
EX-L - 25,050 ($345 more)

This is just comparing the 2WD models of the CR-V to the Accord. Is it worth it to get a CR-V for the same money as an Accord? We'll see with more test drives.

kipk

I have friends with diesel pickups. According to them, the daily fuel mileage is not that much better than a gasolene engine.

They cost more new, yet they have a lower resale than similarly equipped gas versions. This comes from my son that has been selling cars for 15+ years.

Routine oil changes are more expensive. Fuel is more expensive.

If properly maintained, a diesel will outlive a gas engine by twice or more. However I have personally not worn out a gas engine that was properly broken in and maintained. Well... Not in the past 35 years.

Diesels have been at their best when heavy work is the norm. Other than Mercedes, diesel cars have simply not shown any real added benefit for the daily driver. This is especially true if the car is traded every few years. Maybe Honda will have a serious break thru.

Kip

kyfdx

For comparison purposes... I was going through the glovebox the other day and found my window sticker...

'02 4WD EX.. including destination.. $22,740..

$1905 increase over 5 years... well under 2% per year..

thegraduate

I love looking at the old window stickers. I still have mine on my old Accord LX from 11 years ago... it is in the $19,200-$19,300 range (that's No ABS, dual Airbags only, Cassette stereo with 50 watts HAHA, 4-speed Auto, 130 hp 2.2L - kinda funny to me!). Considering that prices are only $2,000 higher than that this much later, I'd say Hondas have gotten cheaper to buy!

fnamowicz

The CR-V has a better rear door design.
If you live in a hilly area and park perpendicular to a hill it's hard to maneuver the rear door on the RAV.

bodble2

You're right about the rear door. All things being equal, I do prefer the swing-up door on the CR-V. But overall, I just think the RAV has it all over the V. Unlike the V, it just seems to have more bases covered. Even though styling is subjective, the new V just seems to be a montage of all sorts of wacky and incohesive shapes and styling cues. Can anyone say Pontiac Aztek? :sick:

isellhondas

Our first load just arrived and to a man, we all think they are going to be a smashing success!

There will always be detractors no matter how good a product is.

Time will tell, I suppose.

varmint

Without having the chance to drive them, it's difficult to say.

Based on what I've seen thus far, the CR-V has in its favor... a nicer interior, a lower MSRP, a less noisy cabin, and better handling.

But the RAV4 definitely has better overall styling. In an image-oriented market that one factor can make all the difference.

varmint

"Oh, I don't know; they [diesels] run cleaner than gasoline engines, have no odor, put out 200 HP on only 2.2 liter engines, get 40 MPG, and put out maximum torque at very low RPMs."

You were trying to be funny, right?

c_hunter

The dealer down the street from my office got an LX and an EX today. The EX was being prepped, and the guy offered to let me drive it if I wanted to wait about half an hour, but I had to get back to the office. I was able to give the LX a good look inside and out. Overall, it's a nice vehicle. It feels smaller than previous CR-V models from the outside, but that may just be due to the styling being more car-like. The front end does not look good on the LX models in my opinion, but is decent on the EX with its chrome accents. It's definitely unique looking, and sure to be a discussion point for many!

The biggest disappointment for me was the interior, in the color, quality, and texture of the materials. There are a lot of hard plastic surfaces in the interior (in fact I can't remember any soft plastic surfaces now that I think about it -- it was either hard plastic or cloth). The front of the dash is hard, the tops of the door panels are hard, etc... and it looks kind of cheap. In addition, there are a lot of different colors/textures thrown together, and the whole mix looks a bit like what I have seen in low budget cars (which I encounter as airport rentals). The interior is definitely a step below what I am used to in the Accord. I haven't looked at a Civic recently, but perhaps it's more inline with that model.

I'll still take a test drive at some point, but the interior really dings the CR-V in my opinion, and will probably keep me from buying the vehicle -- it would be a huge downgrade from our current cars in terms of look/feel/comfort. It just looks really cheap for what could be a $26-28K vehicle. I am really disappointed in that aspect of the car -- what was Honda thinking !?!?

thegraduate

It was from my car, but I was sitting at a traffic light next to the dealership, so I was maybe 30 feet away... It looks much better in person than I expected it to, in fact, I may go by the dealership on my way home from church tonight just to look at them. Both were EX models, and I didn't see inside. The exterior isn't bad at all though.

isellhondas

I love it!

Every time a new model is introduced....

lzc

Your comments echo those of the reviewer at the Wall Street Journal. He preferred the CR-V in most areas over the RAV4 except for the interior, which he described as "el cheapo." "No one will get into the CR-V and say, 'Nice!'"

Too bad. The interior of the RDX is quite attractive, as it should be. And based on the growing inventory on the lot at our local dealer, the out-the-door RDX price might be considerably lower than MSRP.

varmint

Well now, that's interesting. The interior was supposed to be one of the areas where Honda stepped it up. If they failed in that regard, I've got yet another reason to hate this new model.

kauu

I test drove a CRV EX-L today and I was impressed. I just happened to stop by my local dealer today and see if any new CRV's were on the lot. I was surprised to see 4. Two were dark blue, one was sage metallic and one was silver. I looked them over and must admit that the front view did not thrill me. However, everything else was very nice. The CRV looks like a luxury SUV. I am so happy that the rear wheel no longer sticks out.

Two months ago my wife purchased an Accord EX. And I have to say that I am in love with that vehicle. Why? because I wasn't even looking to buy a sedan. My plan was to replace her 2002 Subaru Forester with another SUV. The Toyota RAV4 V6 was at the top of my list. The Forester was #2. I'm a manual man who has never owned an automatic transmission, but I was considering the RAV4 V6 because it is extremely fast.

But before I made my final decision I wanted to test drive all the vehicles. The RAV4 was fast but it still drove like an SUV. The 2007 Forester did not impress me at all. In fact, I must say that my 2002 is a better handling vehicle IMO. So being in a quandary because I had an intense desire to buy a new car I dropped by the Honda dealer to check-out the Accord because I had read so many outstanding reviews about it. Needless to say I loved that vehicle so much I decided to buy it for my wife.

Back to the CRV. I had driven the 2006 model a few times and was not impressed with its handling in comparison to the Subie. And I hated that rear tire sticking out of the back! The new 2007 CRV solves all these problems. It handles like an Accord. I did not feel like I was driving a truck. Taking sharp turns felt almost as nice as the Accord. The acceleration, while not awe inspiring like the RAV4, was pretty good. I think Honda has a huge hit on it's hand. I thinks it's the best CUV on the market.

However have you heard about the new Ford Edge coming out soon. It has a six speed V6. If it is as nice as the preliminary reviews I have read, I'm going to be hard pressed choosing the CRV over it. But, at this point in time the CRV is at the top of my list. Especially since they say a "Bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush.

i4abuy

I went to the dealer and loved the car. I could hardly contain my excitement. That is, until I asked the price of one with a navigation system. The salesman said he doesn't have any coming in and doesn't expect them until the spring. He checked with someone else who told him January. Is anyone else hearing this? What could this be about?

thegraduate

However have you heard about the new Ford Edge coming out soon. It has a six speed V6. If it is as nice as the preliminary reviews I have read, I'm going to be hard pressed choosing the CRV over it

That 3.5L V-6 will come at a cost, though. In the Lincoln MKZ sedan, that engine gets 18/26 MPG for AWD(19/27 for 2WD), and that is in a much more aerodynamic, likely much lighter vehicle.

I would expect the Edge to have lower EPA numbers than that, perhaps something like 17/25 MPG, maybe a little lower. Compare that with the CR-V's 24/30 MPG, and you see where the vehicles start targeting different audiences. Add to that the CR-V will be in the low $20ks to start, where the Edge already starts out on the expensive end of $25k+.

hbc75

There should be no hold up with the navigation, the car is made for it, they simply replace the existing stereo with the upgraded one. Maybe that manufacturer is behind in production?

I stopped by today and they had just received 8 CRV's, 1 Silver, 2 light blue, 2 dark blue, one black, and 2 beige. 2 already had SOLD tags on them, straight off the truck, so these are going to be a big hit, regardless of styling or the materials. The models ranged from the LX to EX-L (no nav). Prices went from 21/22 up to 26,595. I have to say, I sat in it, it was comfortable. What truly bothered me, no power driver seat, that is SO Honda! Why can't they give the driver that at least! I am not sure I like the plastic outlining the car, bumper to tail, the last version had colored bumper for SE models, and that seemed more asthetic to the eye. Just my opinion. Maybe they will look better with Fog lights, which are accessories, as well as the roof rack, splash guards and running boards (per the salesman). going back on Sat. for a test drive once they get them prepped!

isellhondas

You are one up on me. Ours are getting prepped right now.

One of our guys who attended the Ride and Drive didn't like the changes until he drove it.