Howdy, Stranger!

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





2007 Honda CR-V

1235794

Comments

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "Less power, less room, less style (than a car that had little to spare). 3 strikes, and someone is out of the top spot in this category."

    That's a pretty good summary of what I think may happen.

    That said, the "less room" part is still just a rumor. I am desperately hoping it is not true.

    I think the less power part is relative. The current model has 156 hp with a curb weight no higher than 3,500 lbs. The new model is reputed to retain the 2.4L engine with a modest bump in power (somewhere around 170 hp). But it's pretty clear the new platform is going to weigh a good deal more than the old one. Conservative estimates put it around 3,700-3,800 lbs. (That ACE body structure is heavy.) That means slightly more power, but significantly more weight for the engine to move.
  • yysyysyysyys Posts: 51
    The back of the Stream resembles a CRV with taillights that run up the rear all the way to the roof. The seven-seater with a fold-flat third row reminds us of what the Odyssey might have been had Honda not turned it into a traditional minivan here in North America. Traction control and an automatic transmission appear to be standard on the base model, while a six-speed is likely for the sportier RSZ. It still a bit unclear as to what engine will be available.There's also rumors floating around that forces within Honda North America want to see the Stream on sale in the States. It will compete with 7 seater Rav4 and Mazda 5
    image
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Posts: 675
    Yeah I agree.

    I heard the same thing with the 2006 Civic...and the 2007 Fit.
  • master1master1 Posts: 340
    I can't tell from the picture, will the new CR-V have a third row window on both sides?
  • babushkababushka Posts: 1
    have a 1998 civic now, need a small SUV for my next car, very dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v. hate that the seats do not fold flat and instead flip up, loose alot of space. this issue has forced me to consider RAV 4..... anyone know if this issue has been remedied in the 2007 version of CR-V? was planning to buy shortly but would be willing to hold out for a 2007 honda if it is, but based on prior threads am concerned. anyone with accurate info on this subject please help!
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,797
    have a 1998 civic now, need a small SUV for my next car, very dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v. hate that the seats do not fold flat and instead flip up, loose alot of space. this issue has forced me to consider RAV 4..... anyone know if this issue has been remedied in the 2007 version of CR-V? was planning to buy shortly but would be willing to hold out for a 2007 honda if it is, but based on prior threads am concerned. anyone with accurate info on this subject please help!

    Of course they fold flat, they tumble forward and recess into the space between the front and rear seats. To that you have to slide the rear seats all the way to the rear (yes, Gen 2 rear seats slide back and forth, like the front ones).

    Looks like Gen 3 will have less cargo room than Gen 2.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    ...dissapointed by the cargo space of the 2006 honda cr-v.

    The current CR-V has more cargo space than many larger SUVs that cost a lot more. Not sure what you are expecting. It is a small SUV.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    I heard the same thing with the 2006 Civic...and the 2007 Fit.

    And the '02 CR-V. Funny how everyone loves the current design and thinks the new model is horrible. The exact same things were said when the '02 was coming out but at that time they hated the new '02. Hmmm....
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Posts: 675
    My thoughts too.

    I can and have carried dressers, 2X4X8's, christmas trees, sand bags/rocks, golden retrievers and a ton of baby stuf...strollers, bags, etc. My 2004 does everything that I need in this sized car. The ONLY time I needed anything larger was to carry two sheets of sry wall (which I cut down and then carried anyway) and wood flooring for a remodel project.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,890
    Hey, that's kinda like what happens when we have a site redesign or upgrade. Suddenly everyone just LOVES what we were doing in 1998 (except we had no search features, no profiles, no "tracked items" tool...) :)

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,675
    People HATE change. Whether the change is good or not isn't important.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The thing is the outgoing CR-V was a compact but had mid-size aspirations. The back seat was limo-like. Varmint keeps bringing up the large amount of cargo space when you fold the seats.

    The new one seems more like what it is, a compact, with no mid-size aspirations. In that regard yes that could cost them a few sales.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I didn't like the first gen's tail lights because of the sheet metal under them, the way they wrapped around the corners reminded me of the dustbuster vans, just add the spare:

    image
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    For the 2nd gen, they made them a little more interesting, it looked more like a Volvo V70, right down to the bumper that came up to meet the tail lights:

    image
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Now the evolution is complete, and the 3rd gen has IMO the best looking tail lights of any CR-V design.

    It looks more like the Volvo V90 SUV, now that the spare is gone and they almost gave it an S-like curvature. IMO it's the best feature on the entire design:

    image

    OK, I hate the underbite up front but I thought I'd at least point out one feature I did like better.

    -juice
  • fsacjfsacj Posts: 8
    Perhaps they're appealing to the masses, not us. Less ground clearance is a non-issue for most buyers who never drive offroad at all. It might boost MPG a bit, and make entry-exit easier. Plus handling improves and tipover risk is reduced. Wider adds to this, plus three fit better in the back, and with an inch more wheelbase it might be even more limo-like. I bet the reduced cubic feet comes from the reduced hight, but there might be more usable floor space.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    When people complained about the look of the 2nd gen CR-V, they complained about the plastic slats which came up from the bumper and framed the grill. (People still don't like that part of the design.) It's one of the reasons why the painted SE models look so much better.

    But even though that particular design cue was not a happy one, it was not enough to trash the entire facade. It was a wart on the face of a decent-looking rig.

    This new nose is much more than a wart. It's more like putting a full beard on an otherwise pretty lady. Think ZZ Top crossed with Kate Hudson. It's not something viewers will get past.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Wider is better. That's very true. It also reduces the risk of rollover as well as improves cornering stability.

    Adding to the wheelbase however, did not improve rear seat room in the RDX. I doubt it will do much for the CR-V, which is based on very similar underpinnings. In fact, the seating position for RDX is more car-like (raked backward) meaning there is less room for legs in back.

    The issue of cargo space is up for grabs. Some rumors say the space is the same. Others report a significant decrease.

    I expect the width of the cargo area (between the wheel wells) will be greater with the new model.

    I'm not if sure the distance from the back of the vehicle (hatch) to the second row of seats will be greater. Based on what I saw in the RDX, I'd say no. You will have less floor space with the seats up.

    The distance from the back to the front seats (2nd row folded) will likely be greater.

    The design of the rear seat and the "shelf/cargo cover" in the RDX also take up space. If the CR-V uses the same design, cargo volume will be seriously limited. It also appears a lower roof and smaller cargo door opening will restrict utility.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,798
    "It also appears a lower roof and smaller cargo door opening will restrict utility."

    And don't forget losing that great Gen 2 water-tight hole in the cargo floor, which will be filled by a spare tire in the 2007 model.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    If the design of the CR-V's rear seat and cargo hold match that of the RDX, you're in for big losses in the area of utility.

    You lose the fish tub under the floor.

    You lose the space in the rear seat footwells. (The seat cushion will fold into that space.)

    You lose the full width of the cargo hold because only 80% of the seat folds forward. The outside seat bolsters stay upright.

    You lose the space above the wheel wells if it uses that stupid shelf/cargo cover design. (If I'm not mistaken, the RDX also has no tie downs because that shelf covers the floor.)

    You lose the one step flip/fold mechanism. You'll have to fold the seat cushion out of the way, then fold the seatback forward. This is very much like the 1st gen design, though there's no need to remove the headrests unless the front seats are set back fully.

    You do gain a perfectly flat floor with no obstructions.
  • drfilldrfill Posts: 2,484
    I was referring to it's relative stature vs. Rav4, as the Rav4 has always been Second Fiddle to the CR-V in size, power, and sales.

    If you need more information on the two vehicles, let me know.

    Going a 3rd generation without a V6 will prove to be the deathknell of it's market advantage over Rav4. The new look will not help. Plus future redesigns of capable vehicles like Forester and Escape.

    The Rav4 will be #1. It's not if, it's when. It's already selling at 13-14k a month, and Word of Mouth hasn't even hit yet! :shades:

    DrFill
  • ccacpccacp Posts: 117
    If you look at the spy picture the lime green CRV has a little black dimple near the H, that looks like a backup camera like on the PILOT !
  • I like the new design from the side and back. I'm not an engineer, but maybe they shoulda done something on the front end more simple like this:

    image
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,798
    I don't think Honda would have left that space open unless there was a mechanical (cooling, probably) reason for it. At least I hope no one at Honda is so stupid as to have created that front for it's looks...
  • joecarnutjoecarnut Posts: 215
    Perhaps they're appealing to the masses, not us. Less ground clearance is a non-issue for most buyers who never drive offroad at all. It might boost MPG a bit, and make entry-exit easier. Plus handling improves and tipover risk is reduced. Wider adds to this, plus three fit better in the back, and with an inch more wheelbase it might be even more limo-like. I bet the reduced cubic feet comes from the reduced hight, but there might be more usable floor space.
    When you say it like that, I think I'm sold on it. :D
  • miamicrv1miamicrv1 Posts: 66
    If things go badly and there certainly seems to be a track record for that over the last 6 years or so. Honda's decision to not sacrifice gas mileage for higher horsepower to match the RAV4 might turn out to be a brilliant marketing decision.
    What does $100 a barrel oil mean at the pump? $5-$7 per gallon?
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,675
    ?

    Keep in mind the V6 RAV4 is an option. RAV4 buyers (probably most of them) can still get the 4-cylinder if they so choose.

    The difference is: With the RAV4 you have a choice; not so with the CRV.

    Bob
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    If you need more information on the two vehicles, let me know.

    Thanks for the offer but I'm pretty familiar with both of them.

    Going a 3rd generation without a V6 will prove to be the deathknell of it's market advantage over Rav4 (sic).

    Because you feel the CR-V needs a V6 you obviously do not understand Honda's intentions with this vehicle.

    Do you need more information on Honda and the CR-V?

    as the Rav4 (sic) has always been Second Fiddle to the CR-V in size, power, and sales.

    Actually the RAV4 held the sales lead until the competition came along.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    When people complained about the look of the 2nd gen CR-V, they complained about the plastic slats which came up from the bumper and framed the grill. (People still don't like that part of the design.)

    For every person you find who did not like the 2G's front bumper I can find two that did. Remember, styling is subjective.

    It's one of the reasons why the painted SE models look so much better.

    I happen to like the black bumpers. It's an SUV, not a sedan. Remember, styling is subjective.

    You may be right that cargo space changes and mechanical differences may make the CR-V more or less desirable to buyers but as you pointed out, the vast majority of the car buying public doesn't analyze these things like we do. They could care less about a front end design you find ugly. It's a Honda. People are drawn to them for their reliability and engineering. Looks play second fiddle.
  • spindspind Posts: 5
    I called my local Honda dealer as well as College Hills Honda who already lists the 07 CR-V models that are on order for Sept. According to the individuals that I spoke with, the Dealer Pre-Order Fact Sheet does not list a Nav System. Does anyone know anything that the dealers do not?
This discussion has been closed.