Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2007 Honda CR-V

1262729313294

Comments

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,621
    CRV sales in general are excellent but people just seem to hate white cars with ivory interiors, at least in my neck of the woods.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Yeah, small SUVs have always been a respectable seller to seniors. I recall one magazine remarking about how many of the 1st gen RAV4s they saw being towed behind the motor home of a retired couple. The Element also made news for selling to an older crowd.

    Small CUVs appear to be the chosen vehicle for those starting up a family and those trying to get away from one. :D
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    I have always cross-shopped wagons and small SUVs. Out of the whole field, I have been coming back to the same three vehicles every time: Honda CR-V, Subaru Outback, Subaru Forester. The CR-V's handling has pushed us to the Subarus for the last couple purchases, but the 07 CR-V should eliminate that issue from what I have been reading. I do prefer Subaru's full-time pro-active AWD systems, but for most purposes, the CR-V's reactive system is probably fine (I would have to do some serious winter driving to say for sure).

    I think the choice of vehicle is really independent of whether it's a wagon or SUV at this point (who are we kidding, they are all pretty much "butch" cars at this point). In our case, the features and performance drove the final decision.

    I will say this -- when Subaru introduced the turbo XT models, it made a strong impression on me. Other than gas mileage, my 05 Outback XT has been an ideal car for me. The 07 XT model gets a couple more MPG (20/26 versus 19/24 for my 05, both with 5EAT), and would be even better.

    The only other thing I prefer about wagons is that the roof rack is generally better for long loads such as canoes, kayaks, and lumber. In addition to being a little lower (roof height), wagons seem to have more span between crossbars for whatever reason. A lot of SUVs have tall roofs and smaller racks, and are harder to load up.
  • Yes I own a Passat Wagon and I have considered the new RAV4 and the 2007 CRV, however I am still also considering another Passat wagon. I am just sick and tired of not being able to back out of parking spots and not be able to see because of a high vehicle next to me. Sometimes you just have to cross your fingers and hope that someone driving down the aisle will stop when they see you backing out. That is what has pushed me to think about a CRV.
  • I seemed to have missed this info. What are the exterior/interior choices for the 2007?
  • Why did they have to add almost 4 ft. to the turning diameter? I am heartbroken, as I thought my ideal car had been born. I like the looks of the new CRV and much prefer its rear door to that of the Rav 4's.

    If Honda would regain the former 34 ft. turn and add a hybrid motor, I'd be in heaven.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I don't think 4 ft would make a huge difference. The addition is likely due to revised suspension for better handling. Now, if were were talking about 120 ft turning radius of F1 cars... :P
  • extech2extech2 Posts: 120
    "Your right in a warm area black would be a hard sell it was for me....." >>>M
    We have an Accord with black leather. On a 95 degree day, in Southern California, I open the four windows before getting in, start the car, start the AC, and 30 seconds later we are driving off in comfort. I prefer a black interior anywhere, anytime.
  • lgslgs Posts: 27
    Too bad. Love the interior. Actually quite like the exterior. Cannot downgrade to a 166hp engine. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    Speaking of roof racks, the outgoing CRV's roof rack was only rated for 75 pounds, which is really very low. I don't know what the '07 model is rated at.

    Most vehicles have roof rack ratings of between 100 and 200 pounds, with 100 being by far the most common. The Forester and Tribeca are rated at 150, and all other Subaru racks are rated at 100 pounds.

    Bob
  • Has there been any posting of the 2007 CR-V MSRP official or otherwise yet? ;)
  • 330330 Posts: 4
    I have a 06 CRV SE black exterrior/black interrior under 8000 miles .
    How much can i expect for trade in New York metro area(Queens/Nassau County)?
    When can i place an order for a 2007 Top of the line model with/without navigation?
    What are the MSRP's .
    I need black leather interior-what exterrior colors available with that?
    How much discount can i expect?
    The 2006 SE list price was 26000$
    (incl.destination charges)i paid 24000$
    Anybody has all or some of the answers?
    Thanks in advance fgor information.
  • Ivory leather looks very lux best is saddle brown in my opinion which is free and probably worth as much!
  • mnfmnf Posts: 404
    Check the local paper to see what there getting for them but I would sell it to a private party then go after the 07. This would get you the best deal on both ends.. Good Luck....>>M
  • Got a 2006 CRV in April and as great as it is the tilt wheel is not as good as the ones in my 13 year old Plymouth Voyager and 11 year old Jeep Cherokee. Maybe I can get a retrofit for the gear shift and tilt wheel put in to my 2006 from a donor 2007. Only kidding.

    Thanks for the info.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Rob: don't forget, Bob's daughter already owns a CR-V.

    Team Honda was here for the launch of the first CR-V, and i suggested they use a torquier engine, perhaps the 2.3l the Accord used at that time.

    I was ridiculed and ostracized by almost everyone, yet that's exactly what they did for the 2nd generation. Team Honda even told me they could not do that for under $25 grand, and that was in 1997 dollars! The brand-new 2007 model will cost less than $25 grand!

    The point is give your feedback, and maybe Honda will change their minds, decide it is worth it to spend the money, and offer a pricier CR-V with more power (and the upgrades that would have to come with it).

    -juice
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,756
    Rob: don't forget, Bob's daughter already owns a CR-V.

    Oh I know but IIRC, it almost killed him when she bought it!!

    :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Do you mean when she bought it or when she went to get the first oil change? ;)

    -juice

    PS The timing coincided with the engines fires that resulted from sticking gaskets, which I still believe were caused by Lee Iacocca sneaking in to the Swindon plant with super glue. :D
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    2WD wagons... Mazda6 V6 is a decent choice... and, I guess big discounts are available now. You should be able to get a moderately equipped one for $20K. Still, CR-V is roomier.
  • Hey any idea as to the going discount rate for cx7s?

    Does turbo always require premium fuel or can one chep and put regular? (Q for eval of the volvo AWD offerings)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Even though the CX7 is de-tuned from the MazdaSpeed6 (and MazdaSpeed3) model, I would still stick with the best octane you can find for a turbo.

    Turbos basically increase the effective compression ratio because the incoming air is more dense. They dial back the compression ratio for this reason precisely, but not enough to go with regular fuel. Direct injection helps cool the intake charge somewhat, but I still wouldn't do it.

    Same for the RDX.

    Mazda6 wagon is nice, check out the press-button rear seatback release. The V6 runs on regular, too. But no AWD.

    -juice
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    "I don't think 4 ft would make a huge difference. "

    It makes a huge difference. My wife's 2002 Civic has a 37 ft radius, and when driving and parking it, the difference really stands out.

    I think the radius increase is due to a longer and wider wheelbase?
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    CX7 needs premium gas and its MPG rating isn't as good as CR-V's. Still, MPG rating is decent for its size. I don't know about rebates on CX7 - check Edmunds' pricing as well as Carsdirect's pricing before you buy.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,876
    I think the turning radius is affected more by the taller, wider tires... So, in essence, you are trading turning radius for a little better handling..

    You see it a lot in FWD, sporty sedans... the bigger the tires get, the worse the turning radius..

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    I don't know exactly why the PR guys from Honda suggested that $25K number, but the F-series engine from the Accord was 93mm longer than the B20 and would not have fit in the engine bay. Furthermore, the F-series engine was not produced at the Suzuka lines or any of the supporting plants.

    To solve the problem, Honda developed that sequential cylinder casting method we've discussed in other threads. That project involved developing a dedicated variant of the B-series engines for use in only the CR-V and the use of a cylinder design which had been proposed decades earlier, but never before perfected.

    I have no idea how expensive it would have been to reshape the CR-V's engine compartment and shift logistics for the F-series engines, but if developing a unique engine specifically for the CR-V was the less expensive method, I gotta figure your Accord suggestion wasn't cheap.

    As for moving to a torquier engine, that was a concession to the NA markets. Originally, dealers in the US had rejected the CR-V. It was developed as a world vehicle first. And, in other parts of the world, the 2002 CR-V does still use a 2.0L engine. In fact, even the 2007 CR-V uses the 2.0L engine. So, yes, Honda has made changes for us. They are simply changes within a reasonble scope.

    However, as much as consumer feedback may be important to a company, there are hard realities at work. The B-eries vs F-series example above is just one of them. And this particular type of feedback has been seen before. Back in 2002, these forums were aflutter with the same remarks I'm reading today. Only, it was the Escape causing the V6 commotion, not the RAV4. Honda ignored all the V6 fever and created another best-seller using a 4 cyl.

    I figure... the more companies start splitting up the V6 market segment, the less reason Honda has for going there. These companies leave the highly profitable 4 cyl segment wide open.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, this time (as to why people are complaining) it's not so much what the competition is offering as much as it is a new model launch lacking any new powertrain options. The Element also got the 10hp boost so the outgoing CR-V would have gotten that as well anyway.

    FWIW, I think the 2.4l is fine. But I'm saying that if enough people ask for more, Honda will offer it.

    -juice
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,788
    "I think the turning radius is affected more by the taller, wider tires... So, in essence, you are trading turning radius for a little better handling.."

    Yup, you nailed it. That same thought came to me over lunch. It's the tires... they have to design the turning radius so as to not run into the wheel wells.

    I'm not sure the move from 16 to 17 inches was worth 4 feet of turning radius. :surprise:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The new tire is wider but also a lot taller. So the overall diamater grew a lot. Think about when you turn the steering wheel all the way left or right - they need clearance in the tire wells for those big tires (and for the full suspension travel).

    They probably could not go with small tires because they wouldn't have had much ground clearance.

    The old one had a great turning radius, very tight. Not any more.

    -juice
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 27,876
    I've been thinking, too.. ;)

    The new model sits a little lower, with a lower step-in height... This might contribute to the increased turning radius even more than the larger tires... reducing room in the wheel wells, even more.. (and, improving handling vis the lower COG).

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "FWIW, I think the 2.4l is fine. But I'm saying that if enough people ask for more, Honda will offer it."

    See, I'm not sure that's true. It takes more than just demand for a V6. There must also be a decrease in demand for the I4. Until they start losing sales, Honda doesn't have much incentive to change.

    For that matter, I expect we'll see a nose job long before we see a V6.
This discussion has been closed.