Howdy, Stranger!

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





2007 Rondo vs 2007 CR-V

conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
edited August 17 in Honda
When the new redesigned CR-V came out for 2007 I checked it out and added it to my consideration list. I liked the new style and size and the fact it was now offered in FWD (unfortunately only in the base model in Canada) and was so glad they changed to a lift gate rear door from the side hinged door and got rid of the spare. I went to the local dealer and looked over the vehicle carefully and took many pictures. I also downloaded the owner’s manual to get the full details on this vehicle. I need something with a rear hatch so that we can accommodate our Golden Retriever.

Since then, I discovered the Rondo and I have been comparing it to the CR-V as I liked the size of the Honda but as I looked more into the comparison (I set up a spreadsheet to compare features) it started to tilt in favour of the Rondo. Here are some of my findings: (the Rondo features are based on the EX 5-person Canadian model with the 2.4L engine)
Within an inch it’s the same size as the CR-V
Price comparison of the EX 4L 5 person model to the CR-V LX base model the Honda is over $6,000 more (that is including all the fees and taxes). (It’s odd that both manufacturers use the same model letters!)

With this in mind I found that the Rondo had the following features that Honda did not have or was an option:
• Alloy wheels (a ridiculous $2774 option on the Honda)
• Roof rack ($379 option on the Honda)
• Fog lights (again another $592 option – how do they get away with charging such high prices!)
• Windshield de-icer
• Heated front seats (only available on the CR-V EX-L model)
• Steering wheel audio controls (standard on the CR-V EX model)
• Under floor storage area
• Auto off headlights
• Smaller turning circle
• 6 speakers (only 4 on the CR-V LX but standard on their EX model)
• both vehicles have all the same safety features (ABS, side curtain airbags, dual side airbags, ESC, TCS, heated side mirrors, advanced dual front airbags, anti-whiplash active front headrests
• 5 yr 100/000km warranty vs a 3 yrs /60,000km for the Honda
• same front and rear legroom
• Rondo does have more front and rear headroom
• Floor depth 14” greater on the Rondo (to the back of the front seats or to the base of the flip and tumble seats on the CR-V)
• They both have the rear “theatre” seats

if you compared the Rondo EX to the CR-V EX model that would be well over $10,000 more (however, the CR-V would have AWD and a sunroof at that price), so I’m finding it hard to justify that extra cost for the Honda.
I was wondering if anyone has compared the Rondo to the CR-V and ended up purchasing the Rondo and would appreciate your feedback. I should state at this point that I have not driven either one of these vehicles.

Comments

  • viamedeviamede Posts: 26
    Yes I have compared these vehicles but have not bought yet. Have not yet test driven the CR-V. Have driven the Rondo. You really do have to compare the EX as you have noted the LX CR-V lacks a number of items the Rondo EX has.

    A few points...

    The roof racks are an accessory on the Rondo it is not included but is cheaper than CR-V (Honda charges ridiculous amounts for accessories.

    The EX CR-V will give you the trunk divider (maybe it's best feature).

    The Rondo has more headroom front and back and more legroom up front.

    The CR-V has more trunk room.

    The Rondo drove very nice (I tested a 4 cyl.) but the stereo made the doors and windows rattle horribly which made me concerned how long before this happened without the loud music.

    CR-V will barely depreciate. Rondo, if it follows other Kia's will depreciate rapidly.

    CR-V has AWD in the EX which is desirable in Canada but not necessary for most people.

    CR-V has a reliable history (new model not that different), Rondo has no history. CR-V is nicer inside. Rear seats really do recline, Rondo's just shift a bit.

    Honda has big dealer network, Kia has small network that isn't always conveniently located.

    A 2 year lease on the Rondo may be the way to go until reliability is established.

    Good luck.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    thanks for your input, as you have not filled in your location .....
    (wish it would come up in the heading or a side bar, like some other sites, instead of having to hover the mouse over the screen name - tip for this site coordinator)
    .....I don't know whether you are from Canada or the US, but the roof rack is standard on the Rondo EX 5-seater model in Canada (not on the base model). All my comparisons were based on the Rondo EX 5-seater model.

    Depreciate doesn't enter into it in my case, as I keep my vehicles for a very long time (I'm driving a '86 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera at present). The Honda reliability was one of the things for looking at the CR-V in the first place.
    The AWD comes standard on the EX CR-V in Canada, unfortunately not available with FWD in this version like in the US. Never had AWD, don't feel the need for it, plus its the extra purchase cost ($2000 on the base LX CR-V); extra maintenance cost and increase gas consumption.

    When I looked at the CR-V, I found the seat did not recline much more than the Rondo as it hit the rear wheel well housing. I also noticed the front seat (after removing the headrest) reclines level with the rear seat, just the same as on the CR-V. This comes in handy if you want to carry 8' boards as you just drop the rear seat back forward, not quite as convenient on the CR-V due to the drop and tumble style.

    Bottom line is that you will still pay nearly $11,000 more (EX Rondo vs EX CR-V)..........that's a lot of depreciation and unreliability........not sure if its justified!
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Posts: 193
    Alloy wheels are standard on the EX and EX-L CR-V.
  • viamedeviamede Posts: 26
    I am from Canada as well. You are right about the roof rack.

    There is no doubt the Rondo is much better value out of the box. If you are going to keep it a while and are content that the improvements in initial quality at Hyundai/Kia will translate into better reliability down the road your decision should be an easy one. If the rest of my family didn't hate the Rondo I would be right in line with you.

    The CR-V rear seats recline much more, but it is actually safer to not have the seats reclined in any event.
  • I don't allow my family to recline the seats more than a bit while the car is moving. the seat belt won't protect them. However, if we have to pull over in a rest area for a nap, reclining seats sure are comfortable!
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    And what are your experiences so far?
  • We got the Rondo! We got the "lesser" model without the leather seats, etc but we did have them add the black foot mat to the rear bumper (so things would not scratch the paint going in & out of the back). We got the 5 seat model, did not want a third row. I Scotchgarded the entire inside three times before I allowed anyone to touch it.

    Our experiences so far are excellent. It has exactly enough cargo room for our needs. I can drop the 2nd row down if I have more or larger things I need to carry. I just did that yesterday for (lots of) bags of clothes going to Goodwill. There are nice pockets molded into the sides of the rear cargo area you can use to stash liquid purchases (gallon milk, etc) or a roll of paper towels for window washing (I do that when on trips).

    The mpg are a little funny. Rondos do not like heavy feet. I have gotten 35 mpg hwy coming from MA to NJ. My husband, if driving around town, can barely get over 20. If I am doing stop & start driving, I get more like 24 - 25 mpg. Rondos are very sensitive to individuals' driving styles.

    We have learned that for best hwy mileage, keep it steady at 60 - 65. That 35 mpg was a day when I hardly got to 60, because of driving behind a line of snowplows (they were moving!) on the Masspike during a heavy snowfall. Other trips have seen 30 - 32 mpg IF I am the driver.

    We got it a few days before Christmas last year and so far the only thing that has "happened" is the "low tire" light went on last week (and the tires did need air). This was right after a trip to N Engl for college visiting. It has just a bit over 10 k mi on it and we have changed the oil 3x.

    So far, I love this car! Things I like (besides the cargo room)---I can crank the seat up to get more height for me, and my tall husband & I can also adjust the back of the driver's seat and slide it back & forth. But the height is great. I like the purse hook in the front passenger well -- which I use for hanging a trash bag. It has good pickup coming out of a stop, such as entering hwy from a ramp, and it turns nimbly. I have no trouble getting it into even tight parking spaces, and it parallel parks like a much smaller car.

    I can see all around the outside of the vehicle when I am driving---the rear window is not a little skyward-aimed slit and the side windows in the rear of the car give a good view, even for short people like me. Kia did not go for the skinny slanted rearmost side windows that I am seeing all around in the newest cars & which I hate -- they really curtail visibility.

    The visors can be lifted from their hook & pulled towards the center so if the sun is glaring right "there" (as sometimes happens late in the day) you can adjust the visors and not be blinded. With other cars, when this happened, I was holding one hand over my eyes.

    I don't like it that the center console is rather sloped---so you can't rest a book, purse, glasses, etc on the sections without things flying right to the floor even in a gentle stop. I wish these things were a little "boxier." I do like the double compartments in the console (daughter stashes MP3 wires there).

    I don't like the windshield washers' three dinky jets, instead of a spray of fluid like my Caravan made.

    I could say I don't like the crazy racket made if you only open the second row side windows and not the front ones. But no one drives around with only those windows open so it doesn't really matter. If it is really hot, you have the air on---if it is warm enough to open the windows but not hot, the driver has his/hers open at least a bit, too.

    One of the reasons we chose this car (besides the perfect fit cargo & sizewise for our family) is we will have finished paying for it just as the last child begins college, so we will not be carrying a consumer loan during that time. For just under 17k we got a car that does all the driving & hauling of much more expensive models, but without the bill. I know it probably will not last as long as an Outback, but we did not want the bill for the Outback while we were paying for her college! If the Rondo gets us through those years, we will have gotten what we wanted from it. If it gets us father, which I do expect, we will be delighted. I hope that by the time it does die, the mfrs will have decided to go back to offering windows people can see out of.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited November 2010
    Wow, excellent review! Thank you!

    Couple of things...first.. what year, (I guess it was a 2010?) size engine (in Cda they are 2.4l 4 cyl and also a V6 option i think) and tranny did you get? FWD or AWD? Or maybe they only come in autos and FWD.

    Also, re the wind noise when lowering rear windows. Many cars do this so you are not alone. It has to do with the aerodynamics of a vehicle that has low wind resistance but lots of room inside. Just some random other cars that do this very same 'whomp whomping' sound, are Toyota Matrix's and even Buick Enclaves. Many others too.
  • 93949394 Posts: 67
    i looked in Account settings, but couldn't figure out how to enter Location info?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I think I can help you with this.
    On the right, find "Forum Preferences" under Forum Tools. Then go to Forum Settings.
    Then it is obvious where you enter your location info if desired. Then click Update Preferences at the bottom.

    If a mod sees this, one thing I am curious about...it lets you choose your flag, and even tho I attempt to choose Canadian flag, and hit Update Preferences, the flag stays as the USA flag. I tried many months ago also and thought it was a temporary site glitch so didn't ask about it then.
  • 93949394 Posts: 67
    AHA, thanks much!

    .
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    You're quite welcome :thumb up:
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Gimmestdtranny,
    Our Rondo was bought in Aug 07. It is an EX V6 Luxury with the 3 rows, leather, auto climate control, sunroof, etc. All Rondos are FWD automatics.
    At 56,000km, we are still very pleased with our Rondo. It has only been out of service once (back in 2008) when the coil for the rear bank of cylinders failed. It took a week to get the new coil, but we do live in a rather remote area of the country and Rondos were still new then. The dealer gave us a loaner.
    I have tracked my mileage. On the highway (115 km/hr, with 2 adults and 2 kids with luggage), we typically get 33 mpg Imperial. Around town, it's about 25 mpg. The Rondo seems to like 115 km/hr best for fuel economy - the engine turns low revs at that speed and isn't working hard at all. We don't hypermile at all, but do avoid jackrabbit starts and don't do late braking.
    For the winter, we install studded winter tires and the Rondo does quite well in the snow. In the summer, the A/C is a bit slow to cool the interior, but once cool it does stay cool nicely.
    The noise with the windows down is a bit much, so we just keep 'em up and use A/C when needed.
    The leather has been very easy to clean and has worn very, very little, if at all. The interior surfaces are tough/solid and clean up well too. The paint is in great shape, other than the usual parking lot dings - it still waxes beautifully (ours is Urban Gray). It does not get cleaned a lot, what with a full-time job and two kids.
    The headlights are massively powerful and have an astonishing reach on Hi. The lows are super wide and have a perfectly defined cutoff - they will light up the back of the car in front of you but will not shine in through their rear window. The lenses have not clouded over one little bit, like my PT Cruiser's lights have (no haters please, I love my PT). Even the 17" alloy rims still gleam. Of course, we use steel tims with the winter tires.
    Nothing has broken, fallen off, stopped working (other than the coil) or otherwise caused any trouble. Can't say the same thing about my last Honda....
    In all, we are delighted we bought our Rondo. We traded a Subaru Legacy that we loved, but we didn't miss it for very long since the Rondo won us over. We feel safe in it, not just for the multitude of airbags but also it's stability and surefootedness.
    We may possibly not buy another, but only since our kids will likely be grown by the time we wear it out!
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I quite enjoyed your review and account of your Rondo also :)

    I live on hill that whenever we have a mild spell in the winter or get home after a 10 or 12" snow-fall thru the day, truly is a 4 WD hill. But I do wish I could enjoy the economy of a car that is only 2 WD. At least modern day AWD systems don't penalize the fuel mileage too much. My AWD CRV gets just a bit less than the FWD models and that seems to hold true with many models where AWD is an option.

    I am a bit disappointed the Rondo doesn't come in AWD. It might in Cda though. The CRV is quite a good car in so many ways, but I long to have a change. Seat comfort (I'm a bit too big for the CRV seat and leg space) is high on my priority list when I decide to change. I find many new cars don't have a long enough seat flat portion to support under your legs behind your knees. It is fine for most women or small statured men.
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Gimmestdtranny,
    I'm in Canada (the very far East of Canada, actually). All Rondos in Canada too are FWD. As for seat comfort, the leather front seats are a bit firm when you first sit down, but soften a little after a couple minutes. They are quite supportive and are good for long highway drives, which I do often. Our EX Luxury has an 8-way power driver's seat, which adjusts to suit me perfectly (5' 11", 230 lbs). Though I find the bottom cushion to be a bit short, the seat is so supportive overall that the shortness is not an issue. Middle row seat space is amazing, with huge legroom (the seats slide fore-aft about 10-12 inches or so. Headroom in both rows is great, even with our sunroof, which is nice if you need to wear a winter cap! The 3rd row is tight, but it is designed for occasional kid use. We find it handy for the kids when we have adults in the middle row.
    I also wish the Rondo came with AWD, and a stickshift too. Our Legacy was AWD, and could tackle any snowfall. The Rondo has traction control, stability control, electronic brake proportioning and all sort of other electronic aids, which do help the FWD. I find that the traction control cuts in too easily if moving away in a slippery intersection (ie. from a stop), and power is cut (to stop the spinning wheel). However, momentarily easing off the throttle will reset the traction control and power is restored right away. Just a little trick to driving a FWD car in the snow!
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I was looking back over some old fuel mileage books ( i keep them every year, as it is a great source of info for seeing eng and tranny choices etc among all the vehicles if looking for a used car later. You can really track the mileage improvements the mfr make over the years and even when some engines are not as efficient as others even if they are larger. I recall that 2.7 being in the first Santa Fe and it was quite a thirsty engine. In 07 it is a bit better and in your Rondo better still. I would still like to see that new 2.4 DGI engine they use in the new Sonata, in the Rondo, with 5 or 6 sp manual. It'll never happen tho I don't think. The new Rondo (if they bring it back) will likely get that engine but in auto only.

    Your mpg isn't too bad considering the weight of your car and average family loads.

    I would love to have the leather seats as they are usually (almost always) a better seat in support and comfort. But they also are usually part of a sunroof pkg which I will be happy if I never own another sunroof again. My experiences have been terrible anytime I have ever had one. They're hot, they leaked, they malfunctioned and they even raise your insurance premium. But lately you see them ebven on the many of the lower mid-line trim cars. I'm losing the battle I guess, haha
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Gimmestdtranny,
    I can live without a sunroof too. They usually take up too much headroom, though there is still plenty in a Rondo. No troubles yet with leaking, but I have to say that we use the sunroof very little (too darn noisy for me) and so I guess the seal is still working properly. If it were a separate option, I would never buy it.
    As for my mileage, I calculate it myself and don't rely on the trip computer, which is optimistic (aren't they all?). As I said earlier, my typical highway mpg is 33 per Canadian gallon, averaged over dozens of trips in any season (my usual highway trip with the family aboard is 235 km one way, over varying terrain). In other words, real-world mpg, not the silly testing done by the manufacturers or the EPA (ie. all accessories turned off, steady-state cruise at 100 km/h or so, etc). I do try to keep a steady speed, usually 115 km/h and use cruise when I can. That said, I don't mind passing slower cars and don't lag behind slowpokes, ever.
    Interestingly, our prior car (a 1998 Legacy wagon AWD) averaged 32 mpg for the same trip, many dozens of times (over 9 years, actually). It was a 5 speed 2.2 litre 4 cyl with 137 hp. The Rondo has a 2.7 litre V6, 182 hp, and a 5 speed auto, yet it averages 1 mpg more....
    A win-win situation, for sure.
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Gimmestdtranny,
    I can live without a sunroof too. They usually take up too much headroom, though there is still plenty in a Rondo. No troubles yet with leaking, but I have to say that we use the sunroof very little (too darn noisy for me) and so I guess the seal is still working properly. If it were a separate option, I would never buy it.
    As for my mileage, I calculate it myself and don't rely on the trip computer, which is optimistic (aren't they all?). As I said earlier, my typical highway mpg is 33 per Canadian gallon, averaged over dozens of trips in any season (my usual highway trip with the family aboard is 235 km one way, over varying terrain). In other words, real-world mpg, not the silly testing done by the manufacturers or the EPA (ie. all accessories turned off, steady-state cruise at 100 km/h or so, etc). I do try to keep a steady speed, usually 115 km/h and use cruise when I can. That said, I don't mind passing slower cars and don't lag behind slowpokes, ever.
    Interestingly, our prior car (a 1998 Legacy wagon AWD) averaged 32 mpg for the same trip, many dozens of times (over 9 years, actually). It was a 5 speed 2.2 litre 4 cyl with 137 hp. The Rondo has a 2.7 litre V6, 182 hp, and a 5 speed auto, yet it averages 1 mpg more....
    A win-win situation, for sure.
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Gimmestdtranny,
    I can live without a sunroof too. They usually take up too much headroom, though there is still plenty in a Rondo. No troubles yet with leaking, but I have to say that we use the sunroof very little (too darn noisy for me) and so I guess the seal is still working properly. If it were a separate option, I would never buy it.
    As for my mileage, I calculate it myself and don't rely on the trip computer, which is optimistic (aren't they all?). As I said earlier, my typical highway mpg is 33 per Canadian gallon, averaged over dozens of trips in any season (my usual highway trip with the family aboard is 235 km one way, over varying terrain). In other words, real-world mpg, not the silly testing done by the manufacturers or the EPA (ie. all accessories turned off, steady-state cruise at 100 km/h or so, etc). I do try to keep a steady speed, usually 115 km/h and use cruise when I can. That said, I don't mind passing slower cars and don't lag behind slowpokes, ever.
    Interestingly, our prior car (a 1998 Legacy wagon AWD) averaged 32 mpg for the same trip, many dozens of times (over 9 years, actually). It was a 5 speed 2.2 litre 4 cyl with 137 hp. The Rondo has a 2.7 litre V6, 182 hp, and a 5 speed auto, yet it averages 1 mpg more....
    A win-win situation, for sure.
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    Why in the world did my post appear 3 times?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Not sure, but others are saying the same. They think it is if it is slow to post, and you hit it more than once?

    Boxer engines were never known to be mileage champs. They have nice torque tho and i guess there is rarely a free ride.

    Also, in 9 years the technology keeps allowing more efficiency so that will be another reason the Rondo is doing better. And another, is that they seem to put lower final drive ratios (higher revs at same speed) in std trannys than they do in autos. The consensus among some is that they do this to fend off wty claims by dead foot drivers lugging the engine rather than downshifting. And of course the auto does it automatically.

    How many miles on the Legacy? Any troubles with it beyond wear and tear?
  • bgwbgw Posts: 116
    The Legacy had 179,000 kms when we traded it on the Rondo in Aug 07. A very reliable car, rarely at the dealer. At about 1yr old it needed a front coil/shock, at about 2 yrs old it needed both rear wheel bearings. Other than that, just the usual maintenance items.
    However, at 179,000, one of the cylinder banks began to seep oil, ever so slowly, so we knew that work was ahead. So we began to shop around.
    Our short list included a Caravan reg wheelbase, a Mazda 5, and a Rondo. The Caravan was, by far, the least expensive, but it was also the most basic and really just a bit too big for our needs. The M5 was fun, especially with a stick, but it was not rated to tow at all, according to the owner's manual. Since we wanted to pull a small trailer, the M5 was out. So it was down to the cheap Caravan and the more expensive Rondo. In the end, the Rondo won due to it's fabulous safety features and intensive content (leather, 3 rows, climate control, etc, etc), its smooth V6/ride/handling combo, and also Rondos were 0% financing at the time! Out the door, the Rondo was thousands more than the basic Caravan, but cheaper than a Grand Caravan SXT (which was just way too big for us). To this day, we do not regret having chosen the Rondo.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I was going to ask you about cyl head leakage but didn't because I thought you still had the car and didn't want to worry you. I had considered a Subaru about 10 years ago, but found out they have certain issues, and some things just cost more than other things, like exhaust etc.

    Ironically I too have contemplated the Caravan, off and on, mainly because I like the room etc, but I have never pulled the trigger due to questionable build quality. That, and they haven't had an AWD model since around 98 or so? And the AWD were quite thirsty back then.

    It's moot now cuz you have the Rondo, but often a mfgr will put that clause that Mazda did to save themselves potential wty. Sometimes it is actually due to the rear design of the car and mting a hitch can be complicated, but most cars will tow 1000 lb without any issues at all. Especially if when you do tow, you don't have all the family aboard at same time, so those trips to the dump or lumber store are still very doable. I got turned off from Mazda when I started to see the number of relatively new cars rusting badly. I have a friend with a Protege 5 wgn, about an 03 and it was rusting terribly even in 2007. In 2008 there were holes going thru the fender lips. I also saw an 06 Mazda 3 last summer and asked her what yr her car was. It too was rusting and this was years after customers with 02's and 03's had complained to them about rust. There is no excuse in this day and age and use of hot galvanizing, to produce a car that is that prone to corrosion.
This discussion has been closed.