Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2007 Honda CR-V
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Bob
At risk of stating the obvious, every design change has a cost & a benefit. Although a male, which is the 40% side of the CR-V sales, I think I represent the type of buyer the CR-V is aimed at. I want maximum comfort for a reasonable price with mild cargo capabilities. Good MPG is part of the reasonable price calculation, but not from a tree hugging sense. More power is better than less, but it is lower in priority than any of the previous areas I mention. I don't need to pull a boat or carry bricks. I couldn't care less if they have a V6 from a status point of view and would be hard to convince that more power is the answer just for power's sake .
I do pull a trailer with our Forester, and have no desire to go to a larger SUV in order to do so. For me status is a non-issue. So, for time being, Subaru still is the brand that offers vehicles closer to my needs (better towing and a better AWD in a small CUV that I can afford).
Bob
Don't forget, that 6 cylinder would have to be crash tested on it's own in order to be certified for sale. Is it worth it to Honda for the few extra sales it would bring?
The next closest vehicle in spirit to the RDX would be the CX-7, which gets... 19-24 mpg. Golly a whopping 1 mph better on the highway, but also a full second slower to 60 mph.
After that, we've got the FX3 getting 17-23 mpg.
I'm not saying the RDX is impressive. But it certainly isn't bad, either.
That's something Toyota can do. Honda isn't tiny any more, but they don't have Toyota's resources, either.
Acura has a version of the CR-V, and a V6 CR-V would step all over its toes.
The RAV4 V6 is hurting the Highlander, which is OK because a new, supposedly bigger Highlander is due soon. The RDX is not bigger, however.
CR-V would not get a V6 anyway, it would either get the turbo from the RDX or a diesel from Europe. Those powertrains already exist and would be much cheaper than shoe-horning in a V6 for the first time.
-juice
I regularly get 25-26 mpg city and close to 30 mpg in my 2005 CR-V EX 5MAN. I can get to 60 in 8 seconds. How many times did I need to get to 60 in 8 seconds? None!!!! But, if I need to get power to merge, I just downshift and rev the heck out of the engine. Gets me where I need to be in no time.
There are plenty of small SUV's with V6's, this makes CR-V unique that it can compete with the likes of Escape on acceleration, while still retaining the I4.
After that, we've got the FX3 getting 17-23 mpg.
I'm not saying the RDX is impressive. But it certainly isn't bad, either.
doesn't the saturn vue get 20/28 mpg with a honda v6?
maybe they could have put that in the rdx and new crv?
With FWD version it does. With AWD, the EPA estimated mileage is 19/25 mpg.
But I don't think shoehorning V6 is the limiting factor. Honda has three AWD systems at the moment:
RT4WD (Reactive)
VTM-4 (Pro-active during acceleration & Reactive otherwise)
SH-AWD (Pro-active & Permanent with power to all wheels at all times)
I have a feeling RT4WD may have needed a complete redesign to accomodate power delivery of a V6. An alternative may have been to use VTM-4 on CR-V, but it would add cost and weight. Weight, perhaps a 100 lb or so. And cost, well perhaps a grand (and it would apply to I-4 powered CR-Vs too). This, besides the added weight and cost of having a V6.
CR-V has done very well with just one engine option. Rav4 didn't. Toyota needed a boost and adopted the proven formula. Although I suspect that boost has resulted in cannibalized sales of Highlander. Even with the V6, Rav4 is barely keeping up with CR-V which is in its final year of design, and at the other end, Pilot sales keep increasing (unlike Highlander).
So, Honda has managed to stick with the fundamentals of why small SUVs came about and what has made them popular. It isn't them competing with midsize SUVs in size and power, but with practicality at a low price.
After all is said and done, I think offering diesel engine in CR-V is a brighter idea than offering V6. We shall see that in a year or two. Besides, Honda is also planning to launch another light truck between CR-V and Pilot within couple of years, or at least one of the rumors suggest that. I suspect it will be Honda's "Stream".
Not yet.
"Acura has a version of the CR-V, and a V6 CR-V would step all over its toes."
Oh, I don't know about that. Acura has a version of the Civic (in Canada), a version of the Accord (actually 2 if you include the TSX), and a version of the Pilot. They don't seem to have any problems with those.
Also, the previous RAV4 didn't sell well mostly due to its small size, more so than a lack of a V6.
-juice
Because many owners of larger midsize SUVs (or former owners like me) want a smaller more economical vehicle that can do most of what their older larger SUVs did.
If you don't want the V6, no one is forcing you to buy it, but for those who want it, it would be nice to have that choice.
Bob
Bob
-juice
But the thing is that buyers already have the option of a V6 SUV in the Honda line ... with Honda engines in other brands ... or by moving to comepetitors.
With the CR-V, Honda is aiming at a particular market target which it sems to thoroughly understand, has hit the target squarely and has no great incentive to change the formula in hopes that they can please everyone with a single vehicle. It seems to me that Honda's approach to designing cars shows a good understanding of customers and helps keep costs down (which is also something customers want).
Somewhere in the promo lit that came with my CR-V was a quote from "Mr. Honda" who said something like, "Our customers know us by our products. Not by our employees or our pr. So our focus must be on products." GM would be in better shape if it had put that thought into practice.
I think he has mentioned that he does not want to move up in size to a larger, bulkier SUV, but wants the additional power and torque for towing, etc.
...or by moving to comepetitors.
Do you really think that's what Honda wants to happen?! :confuse:
But Bob will only buy a Honda when they merge with Subaru.
I'm sure Honda wants to grow at a steady pace. Based on history, Honda rarely takes drastic steps to do that. Usually, one step at a time and ensuring that one foot doesn't stomp the other.
IMO, V6 made more sense in RDX, in CR-V, sensibility had to take over.
In order to accommodate the torque of the 2.3L turbo, the Acura RDX uses a transmission from the J30 V6 engine family. Want to know why the RDX weighs so much more than the CR-V? Look at the 4 shaft tranny.
VTM-4 and SH-AWD weigh in at approximately 220 lbs. RT4WD weights about 110-115 lbs. That's another part of the answer.
Picture Honda's 2.4L engine pulling along an extra ~150 lbs of tranny and AWD. What would that do to fuel economy, handling, and performance?
I suppose Honda could offer two completely separate drivetrains. In order to have both a V6 and I4, Honda would need to enlarge the engine bay, change the subframes, stock two different transmissions, stock two AWD systems, stock two engines and all the parts, etc. The changes in the basic architecture would probably force changes to the assembly lines in all 8 CR-V factories even though only two of them supply the North American market.
Or, they could take the Toyota route and build two separate bodies. (Which was done to add cargo space and rear seat space, not just a 3rd row of seats.) But that isn't going to be any easier.
And I want a Ferarri with good gas mileage.
Or a Porsche 911 wagon.
Or a Hummer that handles well.
Each car is produced with a budget. Toyota had to give up something to make the RAV4 what it is. I'm willing to bet it was profit. Though there is certainly evidence of cost-cutting inside the RAV, too.
The trade-off is finally getting out of the also-ran slot on America's best-seller list. That way the next gen RAV4 can have a good rep and a loyal following, even after they crank up the price. That's how they got the original Lexus LS to sell.
Honda doesn't do loss-leaders. They spent their budget offering things like a top-notch interior, with some of the best electronics in the business. This new CR-V has larger seats and more option packages. Had they gone with a two engine strategy, some of that would have been lost. Or prices would have risen significantly (across the entire line). Or profits would have suffered. There's no free lunch.
Some dealers in the Chicago area are taking orders for the 2007 CR-V, but It's the same b.s. Only at MSRP.
I didn't say EVERYONE wants a four in their CRV's. I only stated my opinion that I didn't think they would sell very well.
I think I also said that I figured given enough demand, Honda could start thinking about building some.
Guess you didn't bother reading that part?
MAYBE three years from now!
Sarcasm really isn't necessary in these forums.
Hard to say if the new crv will sell well or not. I can honestly say that I was counting on buying the 2007 model. It was a no-brainer. My current car is getting tired and I've always liked the crv. I figured the new and improved crv had no downside. Then I saw the pictures, shrieked in horror, and bought a 2006 model instead. Given that I keep my vehicles forever, I don't care about the depreciation angle. I know what I like and don't like. And I don't like the looks of the 07. It looks like a really small minivan. But, it seems that women and some men like it just fine. So, enjoy.
In 2002, white CRV's had ivory interiors and we couldn't sell them. 2003-2004's had black interiors and these sold great! So, in 2005, they decided to GO BACK to ivory on white CRV's and sales fell in the toilet!
Maybe this varies in other, hotter parts of the country?
http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2006010454040
Would it make more sense to have a wagon since CRV is going to do the same job?
I don't think they are referred to much as station wagons anymore. Sport wagons is the term I hear a lot.
Sport Wagons and CUVs (that is what this Honda is) are basically the same. They serve the same purpose. Don't fool yourself. It is simply different styling. I happen to be 41 and a Sport Wagon appeals to me as well as this Honda CR-V.
Small CUVs appear to be the chosen vehicle for those starting up a family and those trying to get away from one.
I think the choice of vehicle is really independent of whether it's a wagon or SUV at this point (who are we kidding, they are all pretty much "butch" cars at this point). In our case, the features and performance drove the final decision.
I will say this -- when Subaru introduced the turbo XT models, it made a strong impression on me. Other than gas mileage, my 05 Outback XT has been an ideal car for me. The 07 XT model gets a couple more MPG (20/26 versus 19/24 for my 05, both with 5EAT), and would be even better.
The only other thing I prefer about wagons is that the roof rack is generally better for long loads such as canoes, kayaks, and lumber. In addition to being a little lower (roof height), wagons seem to have more span between crossbars for whatever reason. A lot of SUVs have tall roofs and smaller racks, and are harder to load up.
If Honda would regain the former 34 ft. turn and add a hybrid motor, I'd be in heaven.
We have an Accord with black leather. On a 95 degree day, in Southern California, I open the four windows before getting in, start the car, start the AC, and 30 seconds later we are driving off in comfort. I prefer a black interior anywhere, anytime.
Most vehicles have roof rack ratings of between 100 and 200 pounds, with 100 being by far the most common. The Forester and Tribeca are rated at 150, and all other Subaru racks are rated at 100 pounds.
Bob