Howdy, Stranger!

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

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs



  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Posts: 1,110
    jfavour: I agree. But the ripping goes both ways. And then some.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    ripping another brand with emotion-filled statements, rather than with factual information does a disservice not only to this forum, but also to the poster.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Ditto. While I am generally a Honda fan, I find myself recommending the Forester as often as the CR-V. Different car for different needs.
  • Currently I drive a '93 Honda VX; my last vehicle was an '87 Subaru 4x4 GL wagon.

    On my Honda the only repair (as opposed to routine maintenance) I've had done was to the latch on the hatchback. A screw broke, causing the portion of the latch that's mounted on the glass to come loose on one side. My mechanic tells me I'll need a new clutch eventually, but not to worry about it until it starts slipping. Currently at 95,000 miles. No matter what my next vehicle turns out to be, I'll keep the Civic.

    The Subaru wasn't quite so reliable. The timing belt failed prior to its scheuled replacement. It was a long time ago, but I think it was scheduled for 60,000 miles and failed at around 40,000 miles. Adding to the frustration, it failed about three hours from home, and also three hours from the nearest dealer. Also had ongoing problems with cold starting, but that was probably because it was carbeurated. Required a long warm up inthe cold too, otherwise it would have no power, and would probably stall. I think fuel injection came in '88; in retrospect I should have waited. But for the positives, it had something that none of today's car-based SUVs offer: dual range 4WD. I didn't need the low range very often, but it was there for when I did need it.

    The Subaru's long gone, but the Civic has inheritied its jumper cables. Now I only need the jumper cables about once a year, when someone forgets to turn off the lights. (Auto off lights, another Subaru standard feature which would be nice on my Civic).

    Bottom line: I'd consider a Subaru, but Honda would have the edge based on my experience with those brands. In the end, it'll come down to value.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    Both brands have come a long way since the late 80's. I think Subaru has perhaps come even further than Honda in that time span. If you visit any of the Subaru forums here at Edmunds, you will find a pretty fanatical following of that brand.

  • canadianclcanadiancl Posts: 1,078
    appearance-wise. The whole tire-wheel combo has to be bigger. If you look at the Pathfinder, or even the ML320, their wheels are also relatively small. But because the tires are wider and bigger, everything looks right.
  • I just bought a Forester S, and considered CR-V, Camry, and a stripped, below-invoice Maxima. Have yet had the pleasure to drive the Forester in the snow, but I can say this - the Forester is cramped in the backseat, and the rear cargo area is small too. CR-V has it beat in both.

    I just could not bring myself to pay MSRP, the Honda dealer had none to sell until January and even then they were silver, wife shot down, and the old car needed to be repaired.

    I drive on the interstate to get to work, and I thought the Forester had a slight edge in acceleration at highway speeds, IMO. At lower speeds I could not tell the difference.

    IMO, I would wait until the spring and hopefully the prices on CR-V's are down.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sorry to blow the whistle, but you should compare a 1987 Subaru to a 1987 Honda to be fair.

    Since 1995 Subaru has not had a single car make Consumer Reports' "Reliability Risks" list (BTW Honda does, and not just Isuzu clones). Honda may score higher overall, but Subaru is actually more consistent.

    Reliability is solid for both, but the Forester's powertrain warranty is a lot longer, 5/60 to Honda's 3/36. Subaru also offers roadside assistance for 3 years, Honda does not.

    CR-V's biggest advantager is rear passenger space, but to piedra that does not matter. I do like the new seats that slide forward in the CR-V. In fact, I think the two vehicles have a lot more in common than most folks seem to think (rain rails, big 4 cylinder, similar power and torque, similar weight, etc).

    The cold start issue may be that manual tranny Foresters get only a 260 CCA battery, and that is weak. $30 for 535 CCAs at WalMart, I replaced mine after 3 years. Not a significant issue, IMHO. Subarus are very, very popular in Colorado and I have not heard many complaints about that.

    Resale is good. I paid $19,200 for mine and they blue book for $15k. For 3 years, that is top notch resale, more than 78% the original value.

    Both are safe, too. Honda ought to improve on IIHS tests and already had good NHTSA scores. Both good choices here.

    I'd wait for the prices on the CR-V to level off, but right now you have more bargaining power at the Subaru dealer. They've never offered rebates, contrary to what some have implied, but you can get them for invoice, just as you could the outgoing CR-V models.

    Check out if you live near DC, they start under $19k for a 5 speed L (not at all stripped, even has ABS) to about $24k for an S Premium auto with the world's largest moonroof, automatic, and leather.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Hayduke - I've had similar experiences with Soobs in the past, but Bob is right about their current products. It started with the last version of the Legacy and the latest Impreza. Both have been as reliable as the average Honda.

    In the sample of Forester vs. CR-V, the CR-V has been rated as the better of the two. At first, the gap wasn't a big deal. But last year's results show a gap that could now be called significant. The CR-V was rated as "most reliable" for the American market. We'll have to wait and see if the new model achieves the same lofty ranking.

    Illinoiscentral - I think the poster who asked doesn't need the backseat. Cargo volume for the Forester is good enough for camping which was his/her intended use. So I think the Forester should do.

    BTW, are we talking backpacking or "car-camping"? (I assumed backpacking.) Because the '01 CR-V has a bed feature that might come in handly for car-camping. The '02 model only has a lounge chair configuration. It isn't as flat.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    has a '96 Impreza Outback with over 80K, and has had it since new. Nothing—I mean NOTHING, has broken. The wife has an '01 Forester with 2K on it. Again no problems.

    So, either a Subie or a CRV will do fine. It just depends on what features you value more.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    As long as we're passing annecdotes... A poster at the CR-V IX has 184+K on his 97. Only work done is a replaced CV boot (damaged by a corn stalk). He's an Agricultural Consultant and tows a trailered ATV through the fields about 25% of the time. He gave up a Jeep Cherokee for the CR-V and has never looked back.

    My own CR-V has 50K and zero problems. I did have to replace a set of wiper blades. I don't expect everyone to be so lucky, though.
  • Juice is right, to be fair you'd have to compare a 1987 Subaru vs. a 1987 Honda. The problem is, you'd have to find such a Subie first; most of 'em rusted out long ago. Plenty of '87 Hondas around though... ;)
  • Ateixeira, I agree that comparing the '87 Subaru to the '93 Honda isn't a fair comparison.

    To continue the unfair comparison, I've been stuck in snow twice in the Honda, and just once in the Subaru. In the Honda, both times were heavy spring snowstorms on unplowed roads within walking distance of home. Have never owned snowtires, as snow cover usually doesn't last long in Colorado Springs. One time snowtires probably would have made the difference; the other time even some big 4WD vehicles were getting stuck. The one time in the Subaru I pulled off a dirt road with hardpacked snow to park for some backcountry skiing. The snow I pulled into was softer and deeper than I expected, so had to have a little help to get out.

    I'm confident that both manufacturers have improved considerably since '87 and '93.

    The rear seat does matter on my choice for when my parents or my wife's parents come to visit. Cargo volume is also a slight consideration, and being able to put a bike upright in the back would be a big plus.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    Wife's '01 Forester has 21K, not 2K.

  • Hey all. I'm new to this board and to the CR-V. I'm picking up my silver EX tomorrow night. I paid MSRP but my 1993 Mazda flunked inspection so I had to move now - couldn't wait for next year. Not too many 2002 CR-V's in St. Louis - they are going off the lot as soon as they hit town

    . I researched more than I care to think and test drove several SUV's. Hard to make a decision - my wife told me I was worse than a woman when it came time to decide. All I knew was I had to get away from the family sedan look:)

    In the end, once I decided to go with a smaller SUV, Honda's reliability and efficiency got me. I couldn't take the gear shift in the Escape/Tribute and the Santa Fe was too new. I could have gotten a great deal on an Xterra (only $2500 more) but it just didn't seem too well put together. My 14 year old daughter loved the design/exterior of the Xterra but when we drove the Honda, she knew (despite her years) that it was the much better vehicle. I went with my head and not my heart (I liked the Xterra's looks too) but I have to tell you every time I see the new 2002 CR-V's, I find the look growing on me.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Actually, one of my family's Soobs was an '87 wagon. The tranny was the biggest problem, but it did rust pretty badly. We bought it new. My father's '86 Accord ran much better and longer. We got it secondhand. This was the car that attracted me to Hondas. It also had rust problems, but to a much lesser degree. The paint was pretty badly faded, though.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Congrats Mchmike!! Post pics when you have some!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru uses double-galvandized steel today, so the days of rust are long gone. Since 1993, IIRC.

    But think about it - if you have to go back two decades to a completely unrelated model (era, even) to find a significant flaw in a Subaru, that alone ought to sell you on a Forester.

    Saw a CR-V in person for the first time, finally. I was in my Miata so it seemed even taller than it is. Taller and more substantial than the first generation, yet a lot more playful looking. I like the taillights now, more Volvo and less Lumina APV, because there is no sheet metal where the D-pillar should be. The headlights are HUGE. Big eyes on that thing, but they give it character. Wheels do look wimpy, it deserves an upgrade option. A lot more presence on the road. Thumbs up.

  • Now that you have the right tire pressure in your new V, I'm sure the ride is not bumpy. But what about road noise? What effect, if any, does tire pressure have on road noise? I'm assuming that the road noise level is still high. Please clarify, thanks!
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,657
    Do I detect a positive comment coming from you regarding Volvo styling? ;) I always thought you didn't care for their looks...

Sign In or Register to comment.