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

1161719212257

Comments

  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I was posting doom and gloom.

    I'm still posting gloomy.

    Yet, you accused me of backtracking.

    If I'm backtracking from doom and gloom, that would suggest that I'm being positive... which I'm not. Hence my tongue in cheek remarks about you being mistaken.

    Obviously, I knew what you meant to write, but your use of the term "backtracking" in that context results in a contradiction of what you intended - sorta like a double negative.

    I would be a fool not to change my tune about things once the information changes. What amuses me is the people who have been forecasting great things no matter what information is released.

    To get us back on track (pun only mildly intended), let me sum up what I'm thinking now that reliable information is available. Whether you want to call it a reasonable re-evaluation or compare it with political backtracking is entirely up to you.

    The size of the CR-V is more or less perfect. There was nothing wrong with the old model, and the new one improves on it. Overall exterior and interior dimensions are pretty much the same. However, by making the space between the wheel wells a wee bit wider they have improved on luggage capacity.

    Handling is reputed to be better. While this isn't a huge priority for buyers in this segment, it certainly doesn't hurt.

    The engine seems well-matched for the body and has gotten greener for 2007. Nothing wrong with that. In typical Honda fashion there is more power and also better fuel economy at the same time.

    The feature content is also improved and it looks like prices have been kept in check. While the CR-V has always met the needs of the majority quite well, there have been a few niceties which are offered in other vehicles, but have been restricted to the limited run of the SE here in the US. Now we can get those from the start.

    Finishing second place in all categories is often better than being first in only one or two. That has been the model for success with prior CR-Vs.

    That said, I don't think this CR-V has gone quite far enough. The gen 2 CR-V was a significant upgrade in many areas from the Gen 1. This 2007 model is more of an evolutionary upgrade - a refresh. And it doesn't have the same whimsical character as earlier vehicles. I think it could be easily trumped by other players in less than a year. Think about it - all Subaru needs to do to match this CR-V is add a few inches to the wheelbase of the Forester and give it room in the rear seats and the cargo area (and not tribecify its nose).

    Add to that the absolutely horrible nose on this thing and suddenly a buyer has a very compelling to go with another vehicle. And there are plenty which are only one or two points shy of matching the CR-V.

    1st year sales = 140K
    From there on out = 120K

    Had they not screwed up the nose, I think they could've made 150-170 for a few years.

    I'm prepared to be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
  • drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    Think about it - all Subaru needs to do to match this CR-V is add a few inches to the wheelbase of the Forester and give it room in the rear seats and the cargo area (and not tribecify its nose).

    From your mouth....Subaru has had that antiquated sub 100" wheelbase for years (through at least one redesign or freshening, whatever they called it). They better do something about that.

    I really hate to say this and be branded a Honda supporter (oh what the heck) but I think you underestimate the power of the Honda brand. Subaru could put out a vehicle encased in gold (slight exaggeration for comedic purpose) and sell it for less than a CR-V and they will never beat the CR-V's sales. Too niche an automaker/vehicle. Even on a recent trip to the tree hugging Pacific Northwest (unfortunately I didn't run into scape2) the CR-Vs on the road easily outnumbered the Subarus (total, not just the Forester) in my unscientific poll.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You've gotta let one thing go - early forecasts called for a significantly smaller interior. It's something that was commonly believed, and even Temple of VTEC acknowledges in their written review.

    To quote from their article:

    Contrary to some early online rumors (where do these things get started?), the 2007 CR-V's cargo area has actually increased slightly, both with the seats up (+2.2 cu. ft.) and folded (+0.9 cu ft.). Overall interior volume is exactly the same as the 2006 CR-V's, so the initial rumor-fueled panic had no basis.

    varmint believed that rumor. Did he backtrack? Well, he based his original forecast on incorrect information. The word "panic" implies pretty much everyone else did, too.

    With new, accurate information he revised his forecast.

    Give 'em a break, OK? So we can get back on topic?

    Now, I do happen to agree with the power of the little "H" on the hood, that alone sells plenty of them. I've said before they could put the H on a pet rock and get a few sales.

    -juice
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    That said, I don't think this CR-V has gone quite far enough. The gen 2 CR-V was a significant upgrade in many areas from the Gen 1. This 2007 model is more of an evolutionary upgrade - a refresh.

    This is seemingly normal for Honda to do. Take a look at some examples when Honda went Evolutionary-Revolutionary-Evolutionary-etc...
    Anyone remember the 1996-2000 Civic? It was improved, although only mildly, for the 2001-2005 years. Then in 2006, BOOM, a revolutionary interior and exterior.

    The 1995-1998 Odyssey was completely different than the revolutionary 1999-2004 model (HUGE size change, first V6, sliding doors introduced). The 2005-current model was only an evolution of the 1999 design.

    The 1990-1993 Accord was revolutionized (at the time) with its design in 1994-1997 (its exterior design, first instance of V6 Accord), but a more boring redesign came from the 1998-2002 models, only to be revolutionized again with the 2003-current models (240 hp, controversial exterior).

    It can be shown with numerous other instances of Hondas in the last decade or two, but I hope this helps show that Honda is just keeping with its pattern of "Modest re-do, Revolutionary re-do, modest re-do etc..."
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "I've said before they could put the H on a pet rock and get a few sales. "

    What does the nose on that rock look like? I might agree. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I only agree if you limit the discussion to the powertrain. There were not many substantial changes to the engine, transmission, or RT4WD systems.

    But the chassis and body were completely new. I'm sure it was updated a lot more than the 2002 model was compared to the first gen. Not much else (besides the powertrain) carried over.

    -juice
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Well, my point was that the vehicle's purposes seem to change about every other redesign (first and second CR-V were mainly RAV4 competitors, also meant to give the SUV image, this third one seems to be squeezing into the CUV niche built by Murano and vehicle similar to it).

    The Odyssey changed from a tall wagon to a LARGE minivan in one swoop with gen2, while gen 3 really brought nothing new to the game, just basic upgrades.

    The Accord grew in interior size greatly each time, and its exterior designs became much more daring every other time (94-97, 03-07) and became more boring the others (90-93, 98-02) , while the and engine choices changed too, as well as growing from a compact finally to a midsize by 1998.

    The Civic? Well, look at the Civic. It's now the size of the Accord of 1994-1997. The Fit would be a good replacement vehicle for those looking for the same experience they got in their 1995 Civic, that's how much things have changed. I drove my 1996 Accord after driving the new 2006 Civic Sedan... the size difference was minimal at most, and the cars actually weigh the same I believe. The same couldn't be said of the 2001-2005 Civic, which felt much less substantial and much more like the 1996-2000 than the 2006 feels to the 2001-2005.
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    I really do like it. I own two CR-V's a 2001 SE and a 2004 EX w/manual.

    The 2007 is a nice upgrade from the 2003-2006 series and will sell well.

    Now, I do want to say that I was mistaken in regards to the manufacture of the 07, they are all coming from Japan...until they start building them here in the continent. I don't know wether they'll build themn in the new Indiana plant or maybe shift some production to Alliston Ontario. All of our porducts that have been built and shipped are from Japan and was confirmned today at our Ride-n-Drive that they will all come from Japan.

    No official pricing as of yet, the launch will be on the 28th.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Jerry, thanks for the report! Our local dealer had their ride-n-drive yesterday, and I was going to pump them for info over the weekend if I have time to stop in (hopefully snag a brochure too). So how does the front end look in person?

    Craig
  • bsparksbsparks Member Posts: 22
    You said "no official pricing yet". That implies their is unofficial pricing. Any strong hints? ;)
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Anyone can guess that the MSRP will be somewhere around the same as an 06 with like equipment and competitive with RAV4.
    It has to be within some reasonably narrow range of pricing.
    Just look at 2006 pricing and and 2007 RAV4 4 cylinder pricing for a very good idea of the pricing.
    You can't buy the car before the pricing is available, so it doesn't matter that much at this point.
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    actually the front end isn't that bad. I really didn't notice it very much until I was 90 degress to it, and then it wasn't anything that would stop me from buying the car.

    The interior, drive/handling and performance was really impressive...especially compared to the Rav4 and the Ford Escape.

    There was only one thing that I thought was weird and it was minor...and that was the lettering/numbering of the shift positions on the shift lever, very tiny...but the dash numbering/lettering is well lit, so no big deal there.
  • frostyyfrostyy Member Posts: 52
    I am seriously interested in buying a 2007 CR-V but will have to wait to test drive it and see what it is like...

    I have never owned any Honda before...have been driving Jeeps ( Grand Cherokee) for years....I am wondering what the 2007 CR-V will be like for winter driving...How will it be in the snow?? snow-covered highway driving??
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    Frosty, I cannot say exactly how the 2007 will do with winter driving, but I can trell you how my 2004 does....very well.

    Some of the changes the 2007 has over our 2004. First of all the conversion from 2wd (fwd) to 4wd is 20% faster. How it happens nbow is that when the front wheels spin the sensors pick that up and then kick the rear wheels in, so with the 2007 they have improved that speed.

    Also the 2007 had 17" wheels/tires that are wider than our 15" wheels/tires.

    I'd say you'll like what you see in the 2007 model.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The 06 models also got the faster acting ball cam modification to the hydraulic pump coupling if I remember correctly, so 06 owners already have seen the benefit.

    I wouldn't count on the CR-V to be a hard charging winter vehicle on the standard all-season tires, but it should do pretty well in the snow. Just remember it's only AWD when the front wheels start to slip. That's probably OK for most purposes.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It should be more than adeqaute if the roads where you live are plowed. With winter tires it would probably be great.

    On deep, fresh snow, you may miss your Jeep because the new model gives up some ground clearance to the old ones.

    The biggest benefit you'll likely enjoy is a huge jump in fuel economy.

    -juice
  • db2db2 Member Posts: 10
    I can share a story of how great the CRV is in the snow - I'm in MN and have a 2004 CRV - during a snowstorm, and during rush hour, there was about 3-5" of snow with ice underneath, and a two-lane hill had cars and semis stuck that couldn't get up - I got up and in-between all the cars/semis that were spinning out with no problem, and had the OEM tires on my vehicle...was snickering to myself at the top of the hill when I looked in my rearview mirror and saw I was the last car to make it before someone spun out and blocked all the lanes!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That was pretty risky, no?

    Remember the most important part of the safety system of your car is the driver, and the decision about whether or not to proceed.

    -juice
  • natenj1971natenj1971 Member Posts: 174
    Autoweek has a review of the 2007 CRV:

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060911/FREE/60906001/1004

    "An optional V6—offered on nearly all competitors—would compromise CR-V’s basic frugal character, according to Horikoshi."
  • lgslgs Member Posts: 27
    "An optional V6—offered on nearly all competitors—would compromise CR-V’s basic frugal character, according to Horikoshi."

    Its ironic that consumers (particularly in Canada) have to pay such a huge premium for this frugal character.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    An optional V6—offered on nearly all competitors—would compromise CR-V’s basic frugal character, according to Horikoshi

    I hate PR statements like these. People seeking frugality would still go for I-4, and others would have a choice. Honda let go of the frugality in Accord after all.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I agree. No one is asking Honda to forgo frugality. Just give people a damn choice! :mad:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    But I suspect the choice was more about cost, and Honda tried to stay away from passing it down to customers. I mentioned earlier that it is possible, a minimum of VTM-4 may have been needed with V6 power, which could translate to more weight and added cost (to consumers, including those that would buy I-4 since the chassis will have to be able to accomodate the system.
  • tenmactenmac Member Posts: 15
    IF you are looking to replace a Grand Cherokee with a like sized vehicle, try the Honda Pilot, you will absolutely love it. We have one and are totally floored with the fit and finish, ride, handling and lack of excessive road noise. Power is great as it the mpg when you consider the size. The towing capacity is not very good but then we were not looking for that (4.5K it its a boat if my recollection is correct else its 3K).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The towing capacity is not very good but then we were not looking for that (4.5K it its a boat if my recollection is correct else its 3K).

    Actually, its 4,500 for a boat, 3,500 for everything else. The Odyssey van also tows 3,500 pounds, while the Ridgeline pickup can tow 5,000 pounds.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    There is more sound insulation and double seals on all doors.

    Ah. That addresses my (actually my missus') major complaint about my '05 -- i.e., road noise in the cabin on poor concrete road surfaces.

    “advanced emotional styling.”

    Honda should go for a product placement on Desperate Housewives:)

    CR-V is the automotive appliance extraordinaire.

    Well, the VW Bug lives on, the MINI's back, there are so many new econoboxes that I can't name half of them, and it's a good bet that stylish utility is the future of the automotive crafts.

    The Golden Age of internal combustion is now in the rear view mirror, though I'm darn glad to have been a part of it.
  • lgslgs Member Posts: 27
    I'll bet there'll be a more power option added within a few years, in the form of a IMA hybrid battery assist, similar to that of the accord V6 hybrid.

    That would allow Honda to add power and more importantly, low RPM torque, without reducing mileage.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    There is more sound insulation and double seals on all doors.

    Ah. That addresses my (actually my missus') major complaint about my '05 -- i.e., road noise in the cabin on poor concrete road surfaces.


    Insulation may not help that, so hold judgement until a test drive. Those road/tire noises often transmit right through the structure. Some of the newer tires are especially noisy -- the tire casing itself creates noise, separate from the tread noise.
  • turbocrvturbocrv Member Posts: 19
    These are pictures from miguelramos who took personally of the new 2007 CR-V. Enjoy. This is a good-looking vehicle, and there are many many improvements.

    Courtesy of PHOTOBUCKET

    2007 CR-V Flash Player Slideshow
  • bravedavebravedave Member Posts: 100
    Has anyone had any experience with a FWD only CRV during winter weather? I live in NC, and my area rarely gets snow-- we usually get ice. I never do any off-roading. I wonder if it would be worth the penalty in handling due to weight and the penalty in fuel efficiency to get FWD instead of AWD. Or would this affect ones ability to resale when the time comes? Any thoughts ? THank you
  • frostyyfrostyy Member Posts: 52
    Thanks for all of the responses to my winter traction question!! It sounds like the Cr-V would do alright as long as the snowplow has been out...I guess I would have liked a vehicle that you could put in AWD full-time rather than wait for some slippage to take place but I assume that would increase the price and decrease fuel economy....

    Yes I have considered the Pilot also...The main reasons I like the 2007 Honda CR-V are: a) the new hatchback (didn't like the way the rear door opened before or the rear tire stuck on the back); b) great fuel economy over the Jeep (even though I have Multi-displacement system on the Jeep, it only saves fuel on highway driving not city); c) overall length of about 178" (I need a vehicle that is shorter than my current Jeep (187") in order to fit more in my garage hence the Pilot is too long and I don't need the 3rd row seats); d) good cargo capacity (Honda has about 72cu ft with rear seats folded over while my current Jeep has about 68 cu ft); e) at least some towing capacity... 1500 lbs...to tow a simple trailer/aluminum boat or ski-doo)...

    The only negative thing I have heard about the 2007 model so far is the lack of power for passing and merging on the highway...but I am not a speedo anyway and I find that the Hemi power I have now is too much for the Jeep...the accelerator is very sensitive...you can give yourself whiplash!

    I have shopped around for other vehicles with the characteristics listed above but haven't found anything yet that matches the CR-V characteristics except perhaps the 2008 Jeep Liberty that is due next August/07.... but it would have to come with a Mercedes diesel engine in order to come close to the fuel economy of the CR-V...
  • tenmactenmac Member Posts: 15
    Brave Dave,

    Remember that the CRV will go into awd mode when if senses traction loss which could be during a curve that got dirt and sand on it or a rain slick road. The handling characteristics of the pilot and CRV from my experiences do not suffer due to the extra weight of the awd mech, the 2wd seem a bit peppier due lower gvw.

    The extra margin of safety provided by the awd is worth it in me book. Can't wait for a drive exp of the new model crv.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Member Posts: 196
    With VSA and Traction Control is AWD. worth the extra $1200 for the AWD badge.
    I won't be driving thru any snow drifts and the streets and highways are plowed in the winter.
    All the experts seem to avoid this issue.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    With VSA and Traction Control is AWD. worth the extra $1200 for the AWD badge.

    uh? I don't understand what you are saying; I think complete sentences might help (not trying to be a jerk, I'm quite serious).
  • ecotrklvrecotrklvr Member Posts: 519
    Based on your stated conditions, FWD w/ Traction Control (to get you going) and VSA (to keep you going on a straight line) is 98% of the game. The extra $$ is for the other 2%. That 2% would include: steep hills, mud, ruts, and any condition that would let both front wheels slip. Traction Control won't help if both front wheels are on slick snow or ice.
    The one extra thing that RT4WD does, that is hardly written about, is that in kicking in when needed, and the rear wheels pushing the vehicle forward, the RWD forces actually push the front wheels down for better FWD traction.

    Most people that buy a 4WD, AWD, or RT4WD don't need the extra traction very often. The $1200, if you spend it, will get you maybe $800 more in resale value, and the other $400 may save a tow or two. If you foresee a time when you'd absolutely have to drive during really sloppy weather, then spend the extra dough.

    This new 'V looks dang nice to me from my screen; and if it fits me, I'll get one. Living in So Cal, I probably will not get RT4WD - I'll have to see. 1 MPG is not a lot of difference. In my old '99 'V, I felt RT4WD kick in maybe 5 times in 2 years.

    Right now, I drive an '02 Highlander 4-cyl, with no traction control (wasn't available til later). My work-around is keeping great tires on it. Remember, things like Traction Control and RT4WD can only re-distribute the available traction; it cannot increase it. Better tires can increase the available traction. FWD and Traction Control with snow tires (or great All-Season tires) would get thru things that RT4WD with marginal tires would not.

    Just my two cents...
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    What's not complete about his sentence? :confuse: He only forgot the question mark at the end, and he didn't need the period after AWD to denote abreviation, but otherwise his question is perfectly legible.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    ecotrklvr has summed it up pretty well. In your situation, you may never need the AWD. I've driven thru some pretty dicey situation with all-season tires and VSA and traction control. Just have to avoid the steep hills.
  • metro123metro123 Member Posts: 100
    This weekend I was told by my friendly neighborhood honda dealer that the 2007's will be arriving on the lot in a few weeks. Pricing was full MSRP plus a $599 "dealer fee" and it was NOT negotiable. Oh well, I'll check back with them in 2008.
  • fnamowiczfnamowicz Member Posts: 196
    Thanks for the info.
    This leads to my second question. The 2007 CR-V has a switch to turn off the VSA and traction control.
    When would I need to turn off this feature?
  • ecotrklvrecotrklvr Member Posts: 519
    Wow, I've been wondering about this. So there is a switch? That's great news.

    There are times when you don't want the VSA & TRAC to work. Say you get stuck in a mud bog or snow drift, whatever. The usual exit stratgy is to "rock" the car to get it out. Without this switch, the TRAC would make this difficult, if not impossible. There may be other times when switching it off may be a good idea, but I'll defer to Honda's manual on that one.
  • jmurman42jmurman42 Member Posts: 675
    You would turn off VSA if you were stuck in snow, mud etc and needed to spin the tires to rock the car to get it out.

    Also if you have a flat tire, you turn it off with the spare on.
  • drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    Don't know where you are from but it may be worth it to check out other dealers. Even in another city.

    IIWM I would never buy from the dealer you mention, even in '08. That fee is a rip off and I don't give my money to crooks. YMMV.
  • tenmactenmac Member Posts: 15
    Roads get mighty slick when it first starts to rain as the oil on the road surface foams up.
  • albertaaalbertaa Member Posts: 15
    2 things

    1. Wait until the end of the year, between XMAS and New Year's to buy a car. No one is in the showroom and the salesman are dying for a sale.

    2. RAV4 - if the new CR-V will be that hot, RAV4 sales will take a hit creating better deals. The V6 RAV blows away the CR-V when the fun factor is added in.
  • leslienationleslienation Member Posts: 41
    I just told by a sales dealer. In metro. area. the NEW CR-V will be @ the lot on sept 28,2006.
  • ecotrklvrecotrklvr Member Posts: 519
    Sorry, but I have to speak out on this one. Yes, roads get mighty slick when it first starts to rain. This is a reason to go SLOWER, and not a reason to use RT4WD, 4WD or AWD to go FASTER.

    ABS & VSA is great for those slick roads - they'll help you stop and steer better. But if the conditions won't let you go very fast, it's a sure bet that it'll be even tougher to stop.

    Not to pick on anyone, but I've spent quite a bit of my life living in the snow belt of NE Ohio, and then more years in Michigan, and then some in Colorado. In all of those places, the vehicle most often seen in the ditches is a 4WD truck or SUV. The local towing companies just LOVE 'em. They CAN go faster in bad conditions. Problem is, they can't steer or stop any better. Mostly, they weigh more, and have a higher center of gravity, so they steer and stop worse. And then there they are, going too fast for conditions, and down they go...

    Thats what's great about SUbies, RAV4's, CR-V's and the like. Minimal weight and height, with decent road clearance.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    they can't steer or stop any better

    Amen! In greasy conditions, 4wd helps you get going and can help you keep going. But 4wd is of zero help slowing, stopping a/o changing direction. Some of the teevee ads I've seen, especially for awd cars, obscure this basic fact of motoring life but, as eco said, checking out the vehicles that end up in the ditch helps lift the illusion of safety.

    With Winter drawing nigh, it's a good idea to give the drivers in all our families helpful reminders of basic physics and its application to what we drive.
  • drive62drive62 Member Posts: 637
    Any specific metro area? Or should we just drive around the country until we find the CR-V on the 28th? ;)
  • tenmactenmac Member Posts: 15
    ceteras paribas: awd will steer a hair better when all tires meet the same conditions compared to an fwd. But the AWD will steer a heck of a lot better if some wheels are facing marginal conditions.

    If you drive aggressively on dirt roads, in an fwd you will notice under steer while going around curves but this condition will be reduced if the central diff is transferring power to the back axle. Versa track is better yet where the traction can also be managed from side to side and not just front and back!

    Great snow tires on both axles will also provide a great amount of improvement in handling.

    But as we all know rwds and fwds can be driven on most roads safely and some would also venture out on bikes but the awd technology is a great tool to improve handling unless the car is driven on sunny sundays and limited distances in the metro area.
This discussion has been closed.