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

1141517192057

Comments

  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Because, the scripture according to isell says everyone wants the 4. Apparently no chance Honda mis-read the market, or is just late to the game. Just no one wants the 6. :confuse:
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I just want the option of choosing a V6 CRV open to me. It shouldn't be a big deal for Honda, and certainly not the big deal the 4-cylinder-only crowd here make it out to be.

    Bob
  • bsparksbsparks Member Posts: 22
    I think Honda's marketing is fine. IMO they are not trying to make every level of SUV (CR-V, Element, Pilot) a reasonable option for every buyer, they are trying to make each level very attractive to some segment of buyers. The object is not to be on everyone's short list to be considered, but on 150,000+ people's list to buy.

    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 :D .
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    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
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    I just want the option of choosing a V6 CRV open to me. It shouldn't be a big deal for Honda, and certainly not the big deal the 4-cylinder-only crowd here make it out to be.

    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?
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "The X3 is an acknowledged gas hog. That's like saying someone is smarter than the dumbest kid in the class --- still nothing to brag about."

    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.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    That option would require extensive changes, making the entire CR-V line more expensive. Toyota had to build a second short-wheelbase RAV4 in order to satisfy the tastes of the Euro and Japanese markets.

    That's something Toyota can do. Honda isn't tiny any more, but they don't have Toyota's resources, either.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The big, big difference is that there is no Lexus RAV6 or whatever.

    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
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Member Posts: 2,798
    Why is everyone crying about the lack of V6? The idea of a small SUV is to get decent cargo room and decent fuel economy. If you put a V6 in a CR-V, you will not get more than 20 mpg in combined driving. Might as well get Chevy tahoe with V8, which gets 17 mpg, and gives you more power and towing capacity.

    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.
  • jason330ijason330i Member Posts: 35
    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.


    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?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    doesn't the saturn vue get 20/28 mpg with a honda v6?
    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".
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "...there is no Lexus RAV6 or whatever."

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They can accomodate the torque of a V6, the RDX power mill makes a whopping 260 lb-ft. But those reinforced parts are costly.

    Also, the previous RAV4 didn't sell well mostly due to its small size, more so than a lack of a V6.

    -juice
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    RDX has SH-AWD so the handling of V6 power isn't an issue there. It won't be an issue with VTM-4 either. But, with RT4WD, I'm not sure.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Why is everyone crying about the lack of V6?

    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
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The long-wheelbase US version is because the here the RAV4 can be had with a third row seat; not so in Europe.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yep, but that's all we get. Even the 5 seater is the LWB model.

    -juice
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    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.

    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.
  • sazmitty312sazmitty312 Member Posts: 19
    would you all stop about no v6!?!?!?!? i mean come on, the honda crv has options that many of its competitors don't like the navigation with rearview camera. i think tat it has very good power for 4 cyl and gets excellent mileage 23/30 for fwd and 22/28 awd! the interior is very high quality and i love the new more sleeker look!
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    ...buyers already have the option of a V6 SUV in the Honda line
    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:
  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Do you really think that's what Honda wants to happen?!

    But Bob will only buy a Honda when they merge with Subaru.

    :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Do you really think that's what Honda wants to happen?!

    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.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    The limitations of the AWD are a good point. Actually, it goes further than that.

    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.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "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."

    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.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Member Posts: 196
    Let's get serious with these discussions.
    Some dealers in the Chicago area are taking orders for the 2007 CR-V, but It's the same b.s. Only at MSRP.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Please, skip the sarcasm and quit putting words into my mouth.

    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?
  • baccus49baccus49 Member Posts: 60
    What are the MSRP's of the new vehicles? Invoice price should be about $2000 less, right? Hopefully a fair going-rate would be around about $500 over invoice.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    MSRP would typically be ~9% above listed invoice, so $2K is a good guess. But, I don't expect dealers to deal around listed invoice right off the bat. Market price will be determined by popularity.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Just buy a RAV4 V6 if you want one!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Ah....500.00 over invoice?

    MAYBE three years from now!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Didn't "backtrack" at all. You just need to read my posts or better yet, just ignore me as I will you in the future.

    Sarcasm really isn't necessary in these forums.
  • bobdylanbobdylan Member Posts: 4
    Good luck, my friend. I have to believe MSRP will be the "fair going-rate" for some time. Honda really doesn't deal much on redesigned vehicles unless they prove to be unpopular. This opinion comes from buying a new Accord (many, many years ago) and a new Ody after they were redesigned.

    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.
  • wheelz4wheelz4 Member Posts: 569
    i agree with mugen_power77....the new CR-V should definitely appeal to seniors. In fact,I may recommend it to my folks (accord drivers) as something that's easier to get in & out of, offers safer foul weather driving and has fairly decent fuel economy to boot, though it's 5 passenger limit wouldn't allow them to take all 4 grandkids on an outing.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Member Posts: 196
    I could live with the redesigned front but how did they pick ivory as one of the interior colors to go with the new exterior colors. Is this a desirable color for any suv?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I hope people from Honda read thse forums and dump ivory as an interior color!

    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?
  • mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    I would take tan or ivory over black any day but a grey would have been nice in 05 or 06. Not sure if sales went in the toilet as there was a increase of 1% for the year this with a terrible December 05 on the CRV not much compared to the double digits on the Pilot and Odyssey during the same period. Your right in a warm area black would be a hard sell it was for me..... >>>M

    http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2006010454040
  • lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    I bought a 06 with ivory interior and I love ivory :mad:
  • growwisegrowwise Member Posts: 296
    I was wondering if any of the CRV/RAV buyers cross shop wagons like outback/passat/volvo wagons?

    Would it make more sense to have a wagon since CRV is going to do the same job?
  • lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    Not me! Wagons and minivans are for people above 60 ;) SUVs are for younger people!
  • lolu13lolu13 Member Posts: 19
    I am actually cross shopping. I LOVE the Outback. I just don't need AWD and that pricetag. I have also looked at the Audi A3. That is a nice vehicle.

    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.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    CRV sales in general are excellent but people just seem to hate white cars with ivory interiors, at least in my neck of the woods.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Yeah, small SUVs have always been a respectable seller to seniors. I recall one magazine remarking about how many of the 1st gen RAV4s they saw being towed behind the motor home of a retired couple. The Element also made news for selling to an older crowd.

    Small CUVs appear to be the chosen vehicle for those starting up a family and those trying to get away from one. :D
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I have always cross-shopped wagons and small SUVs. Out of the whole field, I have been coming back to the same three vehicles every time: Honda CR-V, Subaru Outback, Subaru Forester. The CR-V's handling has pushed us to the Subarus for the last couple purchases, but the 07 CR-V should eliminate that issue from what I have been reading. I do prefer Subaru's full-time pro-active AWD systems, but for most purposes, the CR-V's reactive system is probably fine (I would have to do some serious winter driving to say for sure).

    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.
  • bmarchandbmarchand Member Posts: 16
    Yes I own a Passat Wagon and I have considered the new RAV4 and the 2007 CRV, however I am still also considering another Passat wagon. I am just sick and tired of not being able to back out of parking spots and not be able to see because of a high vehicle next to me. Sometimes you just have to cross your fingers and hope that someone driving down the aisle will stop when they see you backing out. That is what has pushed me to think about a CRV.
  • wellresearchedwellresearched Member Posts: 63
    I seemed to have missed this info. What are the exterior/interior choices for the 2007?
  • itchinitchin Member Posts: 1
    Why did they have to add almost 4 ft. to the turning diameter? I am heartbroken, as I thought my ideal car had been born. I like the looks of the new CRV and much prefer its rear door to that of the Rav 4's.

    If Honda would regain the former 34 ft. turn and add a hybrid motor, I'd be in heaven.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I don't think 4 ft would make a huge difference. The addition is likely due to revised suspension for better handling. Now, if were were talking about 120 ft turning radius of F1 cars... :P
  • extech2extech2 Member Posts: 120
    "Your right in a warm area black would be a hard sell it was for me....." >>>M
    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.
  • lgslgs Member Posts: 27
    Too bad. Love the interior. Actually quite like the exterior. Cannot downgrade to a 166hp engine. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Speaking of roof racks, the outgoing CRV's roof rack was only rated for 75 pounds, which is really very low. I don't know what the '07 model is rated at.

    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
This discussion has been closed.