Howdy, Stranger!

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

2007 Honda CR-V



  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    I was posting doom and gloom.

    I'm still posting gloomy.

    Yet, you accused me of backtracking.

    If I'm backtracking from doom and gloom, that would suggest that I'm being positive... which I'm not. Hence my tongue in cheek remarks about you being mistaken.

    Obviously, I knew what you meant to write, but your use of the term "backtracking" in that context results in a contradiction of what you intended - sorta like a double negative.

    I would be a fool not to change my tune about things once the information changes. What amuses me is the people who have been forecasting great things no matter what information is released.

    To get us back on track (pun only mildly intended), let me sum up what I'm thinking now that reliable information is available. Whether you want to call it a reasonable re-evaluation or compare it with political backtracking is entirely up to you.

    The size of the CR-V is more or less perfect. There was nothing wrong with the old model, and the new one improves on it. Overall exterior and interior dimensions are pretty much the same. However, by making the space between the wheel wells a wee bit wider they have improved on luggage capacity.

    Handling is reputed to be better. While this isn't a huge priority for buyers in this segment, it certainly doesn't hurt.

    The engine seems well-matched for the body and has gotten greener for 2007. Nothing wrong with that. In typical Honda fashion there is more power and also better fuel economy at the same time.

    The feature content is also improved and it looks like prices have been kept in check. While the CR-V has always met the needs of the majority quite well, there have been a few niceties which are offered in other vehicles, but have been restricted to the limited run of the SE here in the US. Now we can get those from the start.

    Finishing second place in all categories is often better than being first in only one or two. That has been the model for success with prior CR-Vs.

    That said, I don't think this CR-V has gone quite far enough. The gen 2 CR-V was a significant upgrade in many areas from the Gen 1. This 2007 model is more of an evolutionary upgrade - a refresh. And it doesn't have the same whimsical character as earlier vehicles. I think it could be easily trumped by other players in less than a year. Think about it - all Subaru needs to do to match this CR-V is add a few inches to the wheelbase of the Forester and give it room in the rear seats and the cargo area (and not tribecify its nose).

    Add to that the absolutely horrible nose on this thing and suddenly a buyer has a very compelling to go with another vehicle. And there are plenty which are only one or two points shy of matching the CR-V.

    1st year sales = 140K
    From there on out = 120K

    Had they not screwed up the nose, I think they could've made 150-170 for a few years.

    I'm prepared to be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    Think about it - all Subaru needs to do to match this CR-V is add a few inches to the wheelbase of the Forester and give it room in the rear seats and the cargo area (and not tribecify its nose).

    From your mouth....Subaru has had that antiquated sub 100" wheelbase for years (through at least one redesign or freshening, whatever they called it). They better do something about that.

    I really hate to say this and be branded a Honda supporter (oh what the heck) but I think you underestimate the power of the Honda brand. Subaru could put out a vehicle encased in gold (slight exaggeration for comedic purpose) and sell it for less than a CR-V and they will never beat the CR-V's sales. Too niche an automaker/vehicle. Even on a recent trip to the tree hugging Pacific Northwest (unfortunately I didn't run into scape2) the CR-Vs on the road easily outnumbered the Subarus (total, not just the Forester) in my unscientific poll.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You've gotta let one thing go - early forecasts called for a significantly smaller interior. It's something that was commonly believed, and even Temple of VTEC acknowledges in their written review.

    To quote from their article:

    Contrary to some early online rumors (where do these things get started?), the 2007 CR-V's cargo area has actually increased slightly, both with the seats up (+2.2 cu. ft.) and folded (+0.9 cu ft.). Overall interior volume is exactly the same as the 2006 CR-V's, so the initial rumor-fueled panic had no basis.

    varmint believed that rumor. Did he backtrack? Well, he based his original forecast on incorrect information. The word "panic" implies pretty much everyone else did, too.

    With new, accurate information he revised his forecast.

    Give 'em a break, OK? So we can get back on topic?

    Now, I do happen to agree with the power of the little "H" on the hood, that alone sells plenty of them. I've said before they could put the H on a pet rock and get a few sales.

  • That said, I don't think this CR-V has gone quite far enough. The gen 2 CR-V was a significant upgrade in many areas from the Gen 1. This 2007 model is more of an evolutionary upgrade - a refresh.

    This is seemingly normal for Honda to do. Take a look at some examples when Honda went Evolutionary-Revolutionary-Evolutionary-etc...
    Anyone remember the 1996-2000 Civic? It was improved, although only mildly, for the 2001-2005 years. Then in 2006, BOOM, a revolutionary interior and exterior.

    The 1995-1998 Odyssey was completely different than the revolutionary 1999-2004 model (HUGE size change, first V6, sliding doors introduced). The 2005-current model was only an evolution of the 1999 design.

    The 1990-1993 Accord was revolutionized (at the time) with its design in 1994-1997 (its exterior design, first instance of V6 Accord), but a more boring redesign came from the 1998-2002 models, only to be revolutionized again with the 2003-current models (240 hp, controversial exterior).

    It can be shown with numerous other instances of Hondas in the last decade or two, but I hope this helps show that Honda is just keeping with its pattern of "Modest re-do, Revolutionary re-do, modest re-do etc..."
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,719
    "I've said before they could put the H on a pet rock and get a few sales. "

    What does the nose on that rock look like? I might agree. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I only agree if you limit the discussion to the powertrain. There were not many substantial changes to the engine, transmission, or RT4WD systems.

    But the chassis and body were completely new. I'm sure it was updated a lot more than the 2002 model was compared to the first gen. Not much else (besides the powertrain) carried over.

  • Well, my point was that the vehicle's purposes seem to change about every other redesign (first and second CR-V were mainly RAV4 competitors, also meant to give the SUV image, this third one seems to be squeezing into the CUV niche built by Murano and vehicle similar to it).

    The Odyssey changed from a tall wagon to a LARGE minivan in one swoop with gen2, while gen 3 really brought nothing new to the game, just basic upgrades.

    The Accord grew in interior size greatly each time, and its exterior designs became much more daring every other time (94-97, 03-07) and became more boring the others (90-93, 98-02) , while the and engine choices changed too, as well as growing from a compact finally to a midsize by 1998.

    The Civic? Well, look at the Civic. It's now the size of the Accord of 1994-1997. The Fit would be a good replacement vehicle for those looking for the same experience they got in their 1995 Civic, that's how much things have changed. I drove my 1996 Accord after driving the new 2006 Civic Sedan... the size difference was minimal at most, and the cars actually weigh the same I believe. The same couldn't be said of the 2001-2005 Civic, which felt much less substantial and much more like the 1996-2000 than the 2006 feels to the 2001-2005.
  • I really do like it. I own two CR-V's a 2001 SE and a 2004 EX w/manual.

    The 2007 is a nice upgrade from the 2003-2006 series and will sell well.

    Now, I do want to say that I was mistaken in regards to the manufacture of the 07, they are all coming from Japan...until they start building them here in the continent. I don't know wether they'll build themn in the new Indiana plant or maybe shift some production to Alliston Ontario. All of our porducts that have been built and shipped are from Japan and was confirmned today at our Ride-n-Drive that they will all come from Japan.

    No official pricing as of yet, the launch will be on the 28th.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    Jerry, thanks for the report! Our local dealer had their ride-n-drive yesterday, and I was going to pump them for info over the weekend if I have time to stop in (hopefully snag a brochure too). So how does the front end look in person?

  • You said "no official pricing yet". That implies their is unofficial pricing. Any strong hints? ;)
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Anyone can guess that the MSRP will be somewhere around the same as an 06 with like equipment and competitive with RAV4.
    It has to be within some reasonably narrow range of pricing.
    Just look at 2006 pricing and and 2007 RAV4 4 cylinder pricing for a very good idea of the pricing.
    You can't buy the car before the pricing is available, so it doesn't matter that much at this point.
  • actually the front end isn't that bad. I really didn't notice it very much until I was 90 degress to it, and then it wasn't anything that would stop me from buying the car.

    The interior, drive/handling and performance was really impressive...especially compared to the Rav4 and the Ford Escape.

    There was only one thing that I thought was weird and it was minor...and that was the lettering/numbering of the shift positions on the shift lever, very tiny...but the dash numbering/lettering is well lit, so no big deal there.
  • I am seriously interested in buying a 2007 CR-V but will have to wait to test drive it and see what it is like...

    I have never owned any Honda before...have been driving Jeeps ( Grand Cherokee) for years....I am wondering what the 2007 CR-V will be like for winter driving...How will it be in the snow?? snow-covered highway driving??
  • Frosty, I cannot say exactly how the 2007 will do with winter driving, but I can trell you how my 2004 does....very well.

    Some of the changes the 2007 has over our 2004. First of all the conversion from 2wd (fwd) to 4wd is 20% faster. How it happens nbow is that when the front wheels spin the sensors pick that up and then kick the rear wheels in, so with the 2007 they have improved that speed.

    Also the 2007 had 17" wheels/tires that are wider than our 15" wheels/tires.

    I'd say you'll like what you see in the 2007 model.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Posts: 4,487
    The 06 models also got the faster acting ball cam modification to the hydraulic pump coupling if I remember correctly, so 06 owners already have seen the benefit.

    I wouldn't count on the CR-V to be a hard charging winter vehicle on the standard all-season tires, but it should do pretty well in the snow. Just remember it's only AWD when the front wheels start to slip. That's probably OK for most purposes.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It should be more than adeqaute if the roads where you live are plowed. With winter tires it would probably be great.

    On deep, fresh snow, you may miss your Jeep because the new model gives up some ground clearance to the old ones.

    The biggest benefit you'll likely enjoy is a huge jump in fuel economy.

  • db2db2 Posts: 10
    I can share a story of how great the CRV is in the snow - I'm in MN and have a 2004 CRV - during a snowstorm, and during rush hour, there was about 3-5" of snow with ice underneath, and a two-lane hill had cars and semis stuck that couldn't get up - I got up and in-between all the cars/semis that were spinning out with no problem, and had the OEM tires on my vehicle...was snickering to myself at the top of the hill when I looked in my rearview mirror and saw I was the last car to make it before someone spun out and blocked all the lanes!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That was pretty risky, no?

    Remember the most important part of the safety system of your car is the driver, and the decision about whether or not to proceed.

  • Autoweek has a review of the 2007 CRV:

    "An optional V6—offered on nearly all competitors—would compromise CR-V’s basic frugal character, according to Horikoshi."
Sign In or Register to comment.