"This may sound petty but I hope the auto gear shift is a floor console shifter unlike the awful dash design. Does anyone know if they changed this for 07?"
FWIW, I like the Gen 2 dash mounted shifter. It keeps the floor clean and allows for that great pass-through that we used when the kids were toddlers and it was raining outside.
I hate so say this but back in 04 it was one of my reasons that I did not go with a CRV ( also no leather and heated seats) now that i own own a 06 I have to say I like the comfort of the floor area clear. This making it easy to have movement from front to back. Again you never know
I'm with you on this one. The dash-mounted shifter did not bother me at all. Most of the time you'd just put the thing in D and leave it alone anyway. It didn't look sporty, but then the CR-V never drove that sporty anyway.
"After driving the new 3rd generation and learning about all it's new features that the 2006 model has nothing in common with the new 2007 CR-V except the NAME ONLY.Pricing is up a bit over last year's model. Expect around a $1,200.00 increase on average for each version LX, EX, EX-L=(Leather) and EX-L Navigation. One newsbreaking item that will be of GREAT RELIEF for thousands of CR-V AFICIONADOS across America is that the 'FRONT END' is DIFFERENT, and might I say a 'VAST IMPROVEMENT' over the pictures we all have seen in recent weeks. This is all I can DIVULGE for now."
From a reliable source: First off, I would like to tell everyone that I just got back from a training seminar today for the new 2007 CR-V!!!! I have sold Honda's for over 18 years and I must say that this is the 'BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT' I have ever seen on a model change from Honda ever!!!! This new version 'RIDES','HANDLES','ACCELERATES' and 'FEELS' 100% BETTER than the 2006 outgoing model!!!! The COMPARISON is like 'NIGHT and DAY'!!!! We all agreed that after driving the new 3rd generation and learning about all it's new features that the 2006 model has nothing in common with the new 2007 CR-V except the NAME ONLY!!!! Pricing is up a bit over last year's model. Expect around a $1,200.00 increase on average for each version LX, EX, EX-L=(Leather) and EX-L Navigation!!!! One newsbreaking item that will be of GREAT RELIEF for thousands of CR-V AFICIONADOS across America is that the 'FRONT END' is DIFFERENT, and might I say a 'VAST IMPROVEMENT' over the pictures we all have seen in recent weeks!!!! This is all I can DIVULGE for now!!!!
Doubtful. Honda already held a press event for the CR-V. Everyone is already publishing pictures (in print) of the nasty nose. If Honda were going to make changes, they would have done so already.
As much as I'd like to believe this, I have a hard time swallowing it.
Of course, if they have changed it... you can all thank me for whining so loudly.
From this "Reliable" source, would you please come up with some realistic figures for comparision with 2006 CRV in order to justify all these claimed BIGGEST IMPROVEMENTS; RIDES; HANDLES; ACCELERATES; FEELS 100& better than the 2006 CRV?
Let the facts and figure speak for itself! Thanks. :confuse:
I too will wait for the 2007 to be released before I believe two different posts that appear to have been written by the same person, in the same clumsy style.
Pricing is up a bit over last year's model. Expect around a $1,200.00 increase on average for each version LX, EX, EX-L=(Leather) and EX-L Navigation!!!!
I noticed that you forgot to put exclamation marks behind "model" Tsk! Tsk!
I copied and pasted that post from another website. yysyys seems to be very well informed on the CR-V since he has shared info on other hondas which was later confirmed to be true.
Although Edmunds has become less strict about the policy, the member agreement for these forums states that participants should not promote other forums. For a long time that meant not even naming them.
Which makes your's a question we cannot answer. Though, most hosts will allow us to drop big hints.
Just a clarification - as long as your purpose in posting does not appear to be to drive traffic away from these Forums (i.e., purely solicitation for another forum), then it's fine.
GOOD: I heard this information from some other folks in the allgoodautostuff.com forums. here's the info...blah blah blah.
BAD: Hey, I found a great CR-V forum at allgoodautostuff.com. See you there!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. Share your vehicle reviews
Hmm. Interesting. Sounds like a poster could possibly do a bit of steering if they're subtle about it. (Of course, subtlety isn't a characteristic of marketeers.)
It's probably as good a solution as any, because it's nearly impossible to follow the Never, Never, Never rule when many posters are simply swapping info or responding to specific questions.
So it makes sense to try to cull out the conspicuously trollish marketeers.
In the past, we've just written things like, "Google for Honda and SUV and dot com. You might find what you want."
Which is sorta what I was doing. But since I've already caused enough grief this past week, I was being extra careful in not making our hosts work any harder. :shades:
Quick Listing: Road Test: The all-new 2007 Honda CR-V Road Test: The hot 2007 Audi RS4 AutoWorld: Ready, Set, Go Tailgating Long-Term Road Test Update: BMW 3-Series, Subaru Tribeca
What is the brand name of tires, tire size and service description for all new 2007 Honda CR-V and what if Honda dealers in US Version to pick OEM brand name?
European Version: Dunlop Grandtrek US (North American) Version: ? Japanese (Asian) Version: ?
As per the spy photo, it appears the engine in the Euro CRV looks like a 1.8 litre Civic based engine. I hope North America gets the Accord based 2.4 litre engine. I do not think the 1.8 has enough torque to adequately move the CRV to American tastes.
CR-V has been offered with 2.0 liter engine in Europe, so the picture may be showing the same, except that the new 2.0 may be an R-series engine (like the new Civic) instead of the K-series. And 2.2-liter diesel.
USA and Japan got 2.4 liter versions and that is likely to continue, perhaps with 165-170 HP.
Did someone kick the grille in? That is one ugly design. If they align the grille flush with the fascia it would probably look good. Otherwise, the new CRV looks pretty good to me.
Hood still looks like it's not closed all the way. Tragic.
I like most of the front end so a very simple face-lift could easily fix this. Without the underbite I'd even call it handsome.
Bigger wheels fill out the wheel well better, too.
Interior looks good, big step up IMO. Half new Civic, half Pilot, sort of. Seats look great.
And I love that rear tail light, straight out of the Volvo school of design.
The D-pillar really creates a blind spot if you look at those interior pics. You can't see diagonally behind you. But this is also the case with the RAV4, Infiniti FX, Nissan Murano, and Subaru Tribeca. Form over function.
The spare on my '98 Forester L matches the regular wheels, all 5 are styled steelies. The alloys on the S model did not match, however. Cost cutting, plain and simple.
That is a good description - it looks like you're riding down the road with hood open - horrible looking front. I am now looking at several other cars - I had already decided to trade my 2004 CRV for the new model until I saw the three piece front end. I am now looking at several other models. I will wait to see a 2007 in person - I can take bland but not a car that many people (including myself)will look at and think that's an ugly car. Many here say it's not so bad or I'll get used to it - that's not something I want to spend $25,000 on. I think varmint was right about the loss of sales since I had already decided to buy one sight unseen. Only something crazy looking like this design could make me look at other models. Sales may be saved by gas prices if it gets 28-30 MPG.
This batch of pics show the more sculpted look of the body panels, suggesting that the vehicle might look better in person than the previous disguised shots.
Still, I don't care for high-design SUVs. (Take the Murano. Please!) The more you try to make 'em pretty, the more you interfere with visibility to the side and rear and compromise utility, it seems to me.
But that snout! I keep wondering what management process got that front-end design through the approval chain.
It looks to me like a distant ancestor of the grille and hood line was the late-'40s Kaiser-Frazer.
But that snout! I keep wondering what management process got that front-end design through the approval chain.
I can't decide which nose is more hideous, the "clown smile with a massive underbite" snout on the 2007 Honda CR-V or the "pucker up and suck on a lemon" face on the Subaru B9 Tribeca.
You may prefer the boxy shapes of the Forester and Pilot. They do yield great visibility all around - no blind spots.
Gas mileage is still unknown, right? My guess is it'll be the same as the outgoing model, because any gains in efficiency on the engine side will be offset by the extra weight gained.
Current 2006 2WD model is rated at 23 MPG for city and 29 MPG for highway. I just bought one - I'm getting 17 MPG city (too many stop signs, lights and 30 mph limit)and 26 MPG highway (65 mph speed limit). I'm keeping the a/c on - though I'm not using the max a/c. This is better than big truck based SUVs with V6/ V8 - but, this is no Civic either. If Honda can make the engine powerful without sacrificing MPG rating, Honda will have a winner.
What are the chances that the US version of the CRV will have GPS Nav like the Euro version? Same thing with the side mirrors? Will the US version have indicators (turn signals)
The only thing I am waiting to see before making a decision... is how much power does the new CRV have. I guess it will never match the 2006 Rav4's 268 Hp, but if the CRV can move fairly quicky(better than the 2006), the better refinement level of the CRV interior will swing my vote.
I bet it gets at least the 166hp the new Element has. Maybe 170 or so. The CR-V got the 10hp bump one year before the Element did, so I doubt it'll have less power, question is will it have more?
Quote "Toyota has less horsepower and uses more gasoline" Are you nuts? The 4WD Rav4 has 269 HP and gets 21/28 mpg the 4WD CRV has 156 HP and gets 22/27 mpg
I think you got it wrong. The CRV HAS LESS HP AND USES MORE GAS! I'll take the 269 HP RAV4 with 28 mpg over the 156 HP CRV with 27 mpg
The RAV-4 has a fugly interior, and the next CR-V looks like it will have a fugly front-end. But, if you want REAL BAD efficiency, get a VW Rabbit. It has a 5-cyl that only makes 150 HP and gets a meager 22 mpg city.
Actually it's 24/30 with FWD and 23/28 with AWD (source: Consumer Guide 2006). So basically 1 mpg better than the CR-V city and highway for both FWD and AWD models, if your CR-V data is correct.
It's not a 4x4, either.
And I seriously doubt the CR-V has more room, they couldn't fit a 3rd row like Toyota did.
Comments
Ummm, you DO realize that the current CR-V is a Civic "crossover" with a 4 cylinder engine?
FWIW, I like the Gen 2 dash mounted shifter. It keeps the floor clean and allows for that great pass-through that we used when the kids were toddlers and it was raining outside.
First off, I would like to tell everyone that I just got back from a training seminar today for the new 2007 CR-V!!!! I have sold Honda's for over 18 years and I must say that this is the 'BIGGEST IMPROVEMENT' I have ever seen on a model change from Honda ever!!!! This new version 'RIDES','HANDLES','ACCELERATES' and 'FEELS' 100% BETTER than the 2006 outgoing model!!!! The COMPARISON is like 'NIGHT and DAY'!!!! We all agreed that after driving the new 3rd generation and learning about all it's new features that the 2006 model has nothing in common with the new 2007 CR-V except the NAME ONLY!!!! Pricing is up a bit over last year's model. Expect around a $1,200.00 increase on average for each version LX, EX, EX-L=(Leather) and EX-L Navigation!!!! One newsbreaking item that will be of GREAT RELIEF for thousands of CR-V AFICIONADOS across America is that the 'FRONT END' is DIFFERENT, and might I say a 'VAST IMPROVEMENT' over the pictures we all have seen in recent weeks!!!! This is all I can DIVULGE for now!!!!
The CR-V has the manual shifter on the floor, but the Element has it mounted higher in almost the same position as the AT version.
So, Honda can and will move the location of a shifter even with vehicles on the same platform.
As much as I'd like to believe this, I have a hard time swallowing it.
Of course, if they have changed it... you can all thank me for whining so loudly.
Let the facts and figure speak for itself! Thanks. :confuse:
I too will wait for the 2007 to be released before I believe two different posts that appear to have been written by the same person, in the same clumsy style.
I noticed that you forgot to put exclamation marks behind "model" Tsk! Tsk!
But regardless, you're probably bang on with the Honda propogandists thing!
Which makes your's a question we cannot answer. Though, most hosts will allow us to drop big hints.
GOOD: I heard this information from some other folks in the allgoodautostuff.com forums. here's the info...blah blah blah.
BAD: Hey, I found a great CR-V forum at allgoodautostuff.com. See you there!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
It's probably as good a solution as any, because it's nearly impossible to follow the Never, Never, Never rule when many posters are simply swapping info or responding to specific questions.
So it makes sense to try to cull out the conspicuously trollish marketeers.
Just a "been there" observation ...
Which is sorta what I was doing. But since I've already caused enough grief this past week, I was being extra careful in not making our hosts work any harder. :shades:
Many will be fooled by the romantic lighting and professional photography, but the nose still looks bad.
from site:
MotorWeek #2604
Episode Title: 2604/2007 Honda CR-V
PBS broadcast window begins September 29, 2006
Quick Listing:
Road Test: The all-new 2007 Honda CR-V
Road Test: The hot 2007 Audi RS4
AutoWorld: Ready, Set, Go Tailgating
Long-Term Road Test Update: BMW 3-Series, Subaru Tribeca
URL:
http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/upcomingshows.shtml
URL:
http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/upcomingshows.shtml
European Version: Dunlop Grandtrek
US (North American) Version: ?
Japanese (Asian) Version: ?
1997-2001 Honda CR-V P205/R70 15
2002-2006 Honda CR-V P215/R65 16
2007-present Honda CR-V P2??/R?? 1?
I would love to see either Yokohama AVID TRZ or Michelin tires instead of Bridgestone/Firestones.
In the US the 2G began it's life with 15" tires. Switched to 16" mid cycle.
Considering that the current US engine is 2.4L I don't think they will take a step backward.
That, folks, is a face only a mother could love (or a Honda fanboi).
Ugly doesn't begin to describe how awful the nose of the new CR-V truly is.
Where's the :puking: icon?
USA and Japan got 2.4 liter versions and that is likely to continue, perhaps with 165-170 HP.
Hood still looks like it's not closed all the way. Tragic.
I like most of the front end so a very simple face-lift could easily fix this. Without the underbite I'd even call it handsome.
Bigger wheels fill out the wheel well better, too.
Interior looks good, big step up IMO. Half new Civic, half Pilot, sort of. Seats look great.
And I love that rear tail light, straight out of the Volvo school of design.
The D-pillar really creates a blind spot if you look at those interior pics. You can't see diagonally behind you. But this is also the case with the RAV4, Infiniti FX, Nissan Murano, and Subaru Tribeca. Form over function.
-juice
Still better than today's donuts. :sick:
-juice
Well, seeing as the current model gets 29 MPG highway, I suppose there is hope yet.
Still, I don't care for high-design SUVs. (Take the Murano. Please!) The more you try to make 'em pretty, the more you interfere with visibility to the side and rear and compromise utility, it seems to me.
But that snout! I keep wondering what management process got that front-end design through the approval chain.
It looks to me like a distant ancestor of the grille and hood line was the late-'40s Kaiser-Frazer.
I can't decide which nose is more hideous, the "clown smile with a massive underbite" snout on the 2007 Honda CR-V or the "pucker up and suck on a lemon" face on the Subaru B9 Tribeca.
:sick:
Gas mileage is still unknown, right? My guess is it'll be the same as the outgoing model, because any gains in efficiency on the engine side will be offset by the extra weight gained.
-juice
Same thing with the side mirrors? Will the US version have indicators (turn signals)
I guess it will never match the 2006 Rav4's 268 Hp, but if the CRV can move fairly quicky(better than the 2006), the better refinement level of the CRV interior will swing my vote.
-juice
4X2 - 22/29 mpg
4X4 - 21/28 mpg
Honda CR-V
2WD - 23/29 mpg
4WD - 22/27 mpg
Honda beats Toyota's fuel economy. Toyota has less horsepower and uses more gasoline. Honda will have more room than a Rav4.
Honda starts at $20,395
Toyota starts at $22,335
You save $1940 with a Honda and Gas $$$
Are you nuts?
The 4WD Rav4 has 269 HP and gets 21/28 mpg
the 4WD CRV has 156 HP and gets 22/27 mpg
I think you got it wrong. The CRV HAS LESS HP AND USES MORE GAS!
I'll take the 269 HP RAV4 with 28 mpg over the 156 HP CRV with 27 mpg
But, if you want REAL BAD efficiency, get a VW Rabbit. It has a 5-cyl that only makes 150 HP and gets a meager 22 mpg city.
Toyota Rav4
4X2 - 22/29 mpg
4X4 - 21/28 mpg
Actually it's 24/30 with FWD and 23/28 with AWD (source: Consumer Guide 2006). So basically 1 mpg better than the CR-V city and highway for both FWD and AWD models, if your CR-V data is correct.
It's not a 4x4, either.
And I seriously doubt the CR-V has more room, they couldn't fit a 3rd row like Toyota did.
-juice