Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Figure a CR-V SE with navigation would list at $28K. Are you willing to pay that? Put your money where your mouth is. You can buy a CR-V SE today for $23K, and buy an sftermarket navigation system (Alpine, Kenwood, Pioneer) for $1500 if it is THAT important to you. Aftermarket will give you more options such as MP3, WMA, DVD playback, which is always disabled in the OEM systems.
"Ah, the new model rumor mill!"
I didn't say you were nuts, only that it was just a rumor at the time, and that until Honda makes an announcement that's all it is.
Now that Honda has announced navigation systems for the high end Civic models, there's a small possibility they would add it was an option for the CR-V SE or maybe EX. Or they may hold off doing that until the expected CR-V redesign for the 2007 model year.
I'll say it again...until Honda makes an announcement it's just rumors, speculation, and wishful thinking. And since I didn't see anything about the 2006 CR-V on the honda.com or hondanews.com websites my comments about what Honda might do with the CR-V are purely speculation.
And I'll repeat what blueiedgod said. If you want navigation in a CR-V you can add an aftermarket system now for less than what Honda charges and it will have more features than the Honda system.
JM2C
* noone pays MSRP
* the "Civic" ain't what it used to be, i.e. not entry-level any more
* wheelbase is longer than several mid-sized cars
* NAV itself is expensive and a rare option in this class
* have you priced a Jetta?
The Pioneer aftermarket units are cool, but if you want the steering wheel controls to work you have to add the cost of an adaptor for that. Add installation labor and the OE factory unit may just be cheaper.
-juice
I dunno; I'm not a car guy but the review made the Si sound awfully sweet!
First Drive: 2006 Honda Civic Si (Inside Line)
Steve, Host
Tammy
Well, first of all, it's obvious Honda didn't consult with you before they made the decision to include navigation as an option on the newest Civic. Secondly, you missed my entire point -- just because Civics and CR-Vs are "lower" models, doesn't mean that modern technology shouldn't be options. I never said that everyone on this board would pay for it. The majority of Honda Accords are sold without navigation, but if you ask those who paid for it, they are glad they did. And I am one of them. In fact, I love it so much, I'll never buy another car without one. And the Honda navigation rocks! The fact that it is voice-activated and connected to the steering wheel controls is an added plus that an aftermarket nav typically can't touch. Ask anyone with the new navigation (in the Accord) if they like it and if they would buy it again, and I'll bet you'll hear an overwhelming YES! Don't believe me -- check the consumer reviews on Edmunds for the Accord with nav, and read their comments specifically about the nav.
Now, about this "$25 K Civic" -- first of all, it looks hot. In fact if I saw a BMW 3 series and a Civic next to it, here's what I'd be thinking...first of all, the Civic might not be as glamorous, but it holds its own with looks...and with 25K you are getting Honda quality and reliability, not to mention FORTY miles per gallon on the highway! Now a days, you can't beat that without pretty much buying a hybrid. I'm all about buying a quality car that is economical with gas, and if good looks are thrown in, I'm game. Throw in the modern technology of XM radio and navigation with the good looks and the quality and reputation and the 40 miles per gallon, now $25K ain't that bad...what else can you buy for 25K with 40 mpg, good looks, quality construction and superior reliability, with satellite radio and navigation? Not many are coming to my mind...And considering that the average price paid for a vehicle is about 30K, I'd say $25K is within range for most people...
cowl = hood = bonnet
tidester, host
Steve, Host
MPG needs to shown the way the average American drives the car, or at least a best case worst case scenario.
Presure is mounting on the EPA to completely overhaul their estimates. Hmmmm, I know each car company must maintain a minimum mpg for their fleet...I wonder if the EPA numbers are used to calc that number...the auto companies may be in for a rude awakening!
(I am not trying to say the Honda is not fuel efficient...just not THAT efficient for most folks)
Hell, my Camry get 35 mpg according to the EPA...yea Right!
I understand what you mean about the EPA estimates, they are better as guidelines to compare different vehicles, than a statement of real world fuel economy.
Of course my 1999 CR-V EX with nose protector, window wind deflectors, roof rack, and trailer hitch (all items people say lower fuel mileage) regularly exceeds the EPA estimates of 22/25. I get 24-25 MPG around town, and 28+ MPG on the highway during the summer. Because of the winter fuel blend here in the US Midwest, I get about 2 MPG lower during winter months.
Driving habits can significantly affect your mileage.
FWIW the Prius is EPA rated for 60/51 but real-world average is around 48mpg, no better than the HCH. I bet the new HCH is actually more efficient in the real world, we'll see.
-juice
And 30/40 EPA was for the automatic, by the way, it's actually rated higher than the manual!"
In most cars, Honda has taken to gearing their manual transmissions for the enthusiasts, rather than the fuel sippers. It's been that way for several cars in the Honda fleet. The CR-V is a good example. 0-60 times are nearly a full second faster with the stick, but you do lose 1 mpg. And since the Civic and CR-V use a 5 speed auto vs the 5 speed manual, there's no longer an extra gear advantage for the stick-shifter.
Yes it is. CAFE takes unit sales of each model and multiplies by the MPG. It then totals that amount and divides it by total unit sales - that works out to be the Corparate Average Fuel Economy. IIRC, at one time, Escorts were sold as a loss leader to even out the CAFE drops created by Mustang GT's and Crown Vics.
The EPA uses the unadjusted results from their tests to determine the CAFE rating for each manufacturer. Pardon me for splitting hairs.
When the EPA does their tests, they run the vehicle through a set pattern of simulations meant to reflect the acceleration, stopping, coasting, and other behaviors we exhibit when driving. They measure the amount of carbon (? I think it's carbon?) in the engine exhaust to determine how much fuel is burned during the testing.
The raw data they collect is then filtered through a mathematical calculation to simulate outside weather conditions and any other variables not present in the testing. The raw data is unrealistic and the filter brings it closer to being in-line with reality. That adjusted figure is what we see on the window sticker.
When a manufacturer's CAFE rating is published, they use the raw data, not the adjusted figure.
But by using the unadjusted numbers, isn't it deceiving? IIRC, the current CAFE requirment is 27 MPG. Since the window sticker is brought down by 22% from the raw numbers, the true CAFE requirement based on what the EPA considers real world is actually only 21 MPG.
Truth is CAFE has so many loopholes you could drive a Hummer through it.
I mean that literally, as the GVWR of Hummer excludes them from CAFE truck standards.
The newly proposed system is better, where it's by vehicle size (wheelbase and track width). Some very small trucks would actually have to get better mileage than some cars. Amen to that.
-juice
I looked under the CR-V and there was no protection for the differential. The exhaust pipe would be at risk of bottoming out if one was not prudent. The gas tank had a guard, but most vehicles I have been looking at have that--after all there is an explosive fuel in there !
Yes, I would say so. The auto lobby won that one. The current cafe standard for cars is somewhere around 27.5 mpg. The one for trucks is 21.6 mpg. Then there's the "two fleet rule", which is even more malarky added to the mix.
How nutty do you want to get with this?
An overview
The whole dang US Code Title 49 chapter 329
FWIW, Honda's truck fleet has an average of about 24+ mpg... well above the current 21.6 standard.
The newly proposed system is better, where it's by vehicle size (wheelbase and track width). Some very small trucks would actually have to get better mileage than some cars. Amen to that.
Indeed. I've read a lot of criticism of the new rules. Some see this as an opportunity for the manufacturers to build larger vehicles (bigger footprint), they don't have to comply with the standard for smaller trucks. I don't really see it that way. I mean, yes, they might give the CR-V just enough wheelbase and width to make it a category 3 vehicle instead of a category 2. That true.
But what many people are missing is the fact that cars like the PT Cruiser will no longer help DCX to sell V10-powered Ram pick-ups. The Ram and all other big trucks must meet the 21 mpg standard without the help of the not-really-a-truck trucks. It has to earn 21 mpg on it's own.
Yup, it's not meant for serious off roading, if anyone really wants to go that way, they should install some protection under there.
RE: Chaco south entrance. Lately they have stopped routing traffic into the canyon via that route. The signs point you all the way around to the north entrance. The road is still there for those "in the know", who like to check out their suspension system and kidneys.
I know, how dare they?
...what else can you buy for 25K with 40 mpg, good looks, quality construction and superior reliability, with satellite radio and navigation?
I belive Honda Fit will sell under $15K and will have all the goodads. My 1985 Civic DX regularly got over 40 MPG and it cost $6500 new back in 1985.
Yes, Honda moved Civic upmarket, into a midsize territory, and the 2003 Accord became Grandma's Buick for the new centruy.
But at the end of the day, $25K for a Civic is alot. The 2002 Si was listed at $19K with 160 hp, great suspension and it did not sell well. They sold them at $15K like hotcakes. It was a true SUV. Sporty with a rally style shifter. Utilitarian with 17 cubes or cargo. Got about 30 mpg when driven aggressivley and shifted at redline.
I belive Fit is going to be a hatchback.
-juice
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=CR%2DV
But it looks almost identical to my non-CRV owning eyes. New MSRPs:
$20,395 2WD LX
$21,595 4WD LX
$22,850 4WD EX
$25,450 4WD Special Edition
Anybody can tell the differences with the 05s?
I bet the 6CD is standard on the EX, the other stereo is for the LX.
-juice
My comments from the "Prices Paid" board:
I have the '06 CR-V brochure. There are virtually no changes from '05. In fact, most of the pictures in the '06 brochure are the same ones Honda used in the '05 brochure!
HP is now rated at 156 for '06, down from 160, but we all know nothing changed except how they measure it - the performance will be identical. Colors are the same - they may have changed a couple of the names.
Bottom line, if you're concerned about resale in a couple of years and don't like taking a full year's depreciation next month, buy an '06. If you don't care about depreciation and were waiting for any improvements for '06 - go ahead an get an '05 and save a couple hundred bucks. If you want a completely redesigned CR-V , it supposedly is coming out next year, which explains why Honda basically left the '06 untouched..
-juice
-juice
And you know there will be one person that will swear that he/she can feel the power loss, lol.
Actually, I'm waiting for a certain user to mention it in the CR-V vs. Escape forum, and I think you know who I mean. Of course it will be a blow for that person to discover that his beloved Escape also is now rated lower HP...
I think we are looking at $4/gal gas by Christmas time this year. It will most likley be $5.50/gal by 2009. :-)
I am at a half tank on my 2005 EX manual, and 204 miles on the trip meter. I filled up 2 weeks ago at $2.69/gal. I can't complain, this is 100% city driving.
The assembly of CR-Vs will not move to the US. Japan and England will both continue to build CR-Vs (as well as China). Most of those will go to other markets. However, we are not expecting Ohio to assume the full load of production. I don't think they have the capacity. Instead, the US and Canada will probably get vehicles from both the US and Japan.
Rumors of hybrids are just that... rumors. Earlier this year, Honda's top exec stated that a hybrid SUV would not be part of their 3-year plan. So 2008 would be the absolute earliest we should expect to see one. And there's no reason at this point to assume they'd start with the CR-V. I mean, they already have a VCM V6 for the Pilot. There is no such engine for the CR-V.
-juice
The only vehicles of similar design with higher mpg ratings are the RAV4 and Forester. As good as they are, both vehicles sell in quantities far lower than the CR-V.
Now ask how many of those lost buyers would be willing to pay 2-3K dollars more for a hybrid version of the CR-V instead of a RAV4 or Forester? Keep in mind that the Escape HEV will have sold a big chunk of the early adopters.
If so, I bet they could sell every one they made, and yes, even for 2-3k more than it costs now. Base it on the EX model, not the SE, and it would still cost a whole lot less than the Escape hybrid.
Plus - Ford always talks about how their hybrid is just $3000 grand or so more than the V6, not the 2.3l 4 banger. Yet performance drops, it can't match the V6.
A hybrid CR-V would likely be the best performing CR-V. It would be an upgrade, basically.
Marketing it would be easy, IMO.
-juice
As for production location, I think that move may have something to do with insulating them from currency fluctuations. The Euro has been doing well and the Dollar has been weak. With vehicles produced in Japan, there's a bit of currency fudging possible to help alleviate problems with the exchange rate. That isn't possible with the Euro. Production in the US would result in a steady 1:1 rate with a likely drop in shipping costs.
-juice
MSRP for an EX sedan with NAV, 5 speed, is under $20k. Wow. Coupe also, EX NAV is under $20k.
Add XM radio and an automatic trans and the EX is still under $21 grand.
The price of NAV works out to just $1500, very cheap if you ask me. $1800-2000 is the norm. This could bode well for CR-V fans wanting NAV.
-juice
People are not looking at the Hybrids in a much wider view. They just concentrate on the localized fuel efficiency. Even if you concentrate on fuel efficiency, in order to save money, even at $4/gal gasoline, it will take 8 years, 100,000 miles of driving. Average new car purchase in the US is made every 48 months. So, one will never recouperate the initial investment. Then when batteries need replacement, the fuel savings will be eaten up by the replacement cost outside of warranty. Used, high mileage hybrids are going to be dead weights on dealers lots, because of possibility of huge repair bills.
Hybrids return high fuel economy when driven a certain way, check out hybrid forums. Jack rabbit starts and racing from light to light kill hybrid economy as well as it does gasser economy. So, a hybrid CR-V rated at 35 mpg, will deliver 22 mpg in the hands of "block racer." I regularly get 26 mpg in the 2005 CR-V EX manual. And since the recent gas price spikes, I adjusted my driving to shifting at or bellow 2500 RPM, taking my time getting to speed. At half tank, trip meter shows 204 miles. I can't wait until next week to fill up, to calculate my fuel economy on this run. This is without acetone, or any additive on cheap BJ's gas.
Most vehicles are bought on emotion rather than on dollars and cents. Especially hybrids. People buy them because it makes them feel good that they are trying to do something - even if it costs them more to do it.
You're also overlooking many other benefits:
* increased range
* tax credits
* HOV lane access (in some states)
* great low rpm torque characteristics
* low emissions
* 8 year/100k warranty on battery (150k in some states)
* low speed quietness (zero engine noise)
* contributes to lower demand for imported oil
HCH gets a real-world 48mpg average, significantly better than the regular Civic. Plus the new one should do even better, with A/C that can operate with the engine still off.
Sure they cost more, but there are many tangible benefits. It's not all hype.
EPA figures are optimistic, sure, but they are for many non-hybrids as well.
-juice
Steve, Host
I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive, though, what about a diesel-electric hybrid?
Diesels do well in highway mpg, while hybrids do well in city mpg. Imagine the possibilities.
Emotion - I agree about that, but here's the thing. Most people will opt for the super/turbo/V8 upgrade engine, pay more for it, drive it fast for a month, until the novelty wears off. Then they drive it regularly, where 90% of the time they won't notice the difference. By then, the hybrid (or diesel) makes more sense. You get the same job done more efficiently.
-juice
Now, a diesel CR-V degrades performance (acceleration), but would likely increase utility (towing, off-roading, etc.) as well as increase range and fuel economy.
But there are other drawbacks to the diesel. As has been proven with the european Accord, the additional weight of the diesel powerplant significantly degrades handling as well as acceleration. Read the reviews and you can see what a difference that weight makes to the balance of the chassis.
Then there's the added noise of the diesel. Relative to other diesels, Honda's 2.2 is refined. But when you compare it with the 2.4 petrol engine, it's still pretty rough. Who here thinks the CR-V needs to be noisier?