Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Sep 20 (Japan)
Some features...
* ABS is standard
* Four wheel disc brakes standard in all models
* Vehicle Stability Assist is optional (Auto only)
* Electronic Brake Distribution is optional
* Moonroof (EX)
* NAVI is optional
* Some improvements to RT4WD system
Fullmark versus Performa...
Earlier I thought that Fullmark was higher end model for CR-V. It isn't. Honda classified CRV based on styling and 'urban' requirements.
Fullmark has a cleaner look, with hidden spare and color-keyed bumper, and rear license plate on the center of bumper. Available only with automatic transmission, with AWD being an option.
Performa looks similar to what we will get with rear mounted spare and dark bumper ("activity" styling), and rear license plate to the left of the bumper. Available with AWD as standard feature, and automatic or manual transmission.
About three years down the road, we would get an SE version for sure, and it should look pretty much like the Fullmark, except (perhaps) the spare still mounted on the rear.
About seven exterior colors, with two interior color choices (sand and grey). Leather seating is optional (we may not get it until the SE model arrives).
The engine choice is 2.0 liter DOHC i-VTEC for JDM (also powers the Stream in Japan, base RSX and upcoming Civic SI etc.).
As far as America bound CR-V is concerned, it will have a 2.4 liter DOHC iVTEC with 160 HP and 162 lb.-ft (3600 rpm). 90% of the peak torque is available from 2000 rpm onwards (to about 6000 rpm). The redline is 6500 rpm, and a choice of 4-speed automatic and 5-speed manual. Those who would go for manual transmission will be in for a good surprise (short geared!).
I doubt Honda will increase the engine output for CR-V beyond that, atleast for now. Even with this engine, and 3318 lb (fully loaded EX) curb weight, my estimate for 0-60 mph run with manual transmission is about 8.2 seconds (more than 1 second quicker than the previous CR-V).
EPA gas mileage estimate (auto): 22 mpg/26 mpg
Or we could talk about the new color schemes...even though I like my Milano Red '99, the new Chianti Red with Saddle interior looks pretty cool.
90% of peak torque (145 ftlbs) is available from 2200 through 5250. Here's a home grown graph which is a bit clearer than the one provided by Honda and posted at the Digital Newsroom. Hmmm.. better make this a link.
hp and torque
Diploid - We could always chat about the spare tire location.
jimxo - Yes. I would expect dealers to be gouging at first, so anything under MSRP is probably a decent price.
Tatu - I'm with you. I suspect that the surprize is out of the bag and we're already looking at it.
And yes, none of the links provided in the e-mail worked.
I just hope Honda brings it all over here...the nav system, Fullmark, VSA, 3rd row...just bring it all.
On a separate note, I called Fremont Honda in SF Bay Area, and all they told me is that they require $1,000 deposit to get one of the first ones, and did not even talk about pricing. I sent two more e-mails asking about pricing, but they never answered... I then called Anderson Honda in Palo Alto and they won't commit to a price. They claim that they are waiting to see what the market price will be, and then will beat it. So, if the market price is $2K above MSRP, that would not be too good. Then again, I can't fault them for trying to squeeze as much as they can out of the CRV/client... Basically, if I can't get it for $500 less than MSRP when it comes out, I'll wait until I can. Unfortunately, with the economy in the tank, that should not be too hard.
Guess its not as good as Tribute in the speed department.
But yeah, a small V-6 would've been nice.
I know, I know...they're afraid it's going to steal sales away from the upcoming Honda MDX-version.
You hafta admit- it's a good-looking vehicle.
The CR-V basically copied the Escape's body style.
And now it looks decent (I always thought the current CR-V was too boxy). But those headlights just look weird from the frontal view.
Diploid - Think about how those items would add to the cost of the car. Would you really pay $26-27K for a CR-V? With kind of money, I'd step up to a Highlander or something similar.
Robertmx - Specific output for the 2.4L i-VTEC is about the same as the Soob 2.5 4cyl and the Suzuki 2.5 V6, but I'll wager that the powerband is broader than both.
As for a V6. Dream on, folks. The CR-V is still based on a Civic platform. Let's take a minute to consider what Honda would have to do.
With 6 cylinders under the hood, you'd have to enlarge the front of the vehicle. Maybe cut out some legroom in the front, remove those pesky crush zones, or lengthen the wheelbase. Ford gets away with by having a hood that is almost two inches higher than the CR-V's. Ever wonder why they only get 20 mpg? It's been well documented that the EPA estimates are optimistic at best. Estimated cost to the consumer: $1,000-1,4000.
Now what about extra weight. How do you compensate for that? Maybe add beefier suspension, bolster the chassis with extra reinforcements, upgrade the mountings, or maybe leave off things like the hood. Weight distribution is about 55/45 biased toward to the front. With an extra 150 lbs (using Robert's estimate) we're at about 58/42. Not the best for handling, better upgrade that suspension again. Estimated cost to the consumer: $800-1,200.
Oh what, now you want a drivetrain? Well that Civic-based gear box and mechanicals aint gonna cut it with 200 ftlbs cranking through it. I think we need to change it's direction too. Estimated cost to the consumer: $500.
Well, now we have most of the designing done, the only question now is, "where do we build it?" Well we can't use a Civic line because of the engine and tranny, but we can't use an Accord line because of the platform. We need a new production line. Not that big a deal, actually. Honda can ramp up production lines rather quickly. However, shipping the parts all over the place is anothe matter all together. Cost to the consumer: $300-400.
Yeah, that's all fiction, but you should get the point. The Escape/tribute are based on V6 platforms with trannies based on the same cars. The Santa Fe and Vue are also based on 6 cyl platforms The Xterra is based on a midsize platform that spent its youth smoking and stunted its growth. The Liberty is unique, but it doesn't have to share with another cars. Honda is too small to afford that kind of production. They have to share platforms for economic reasons. The Suzuki has a V6, but it puts out less power than the 2.0 based engine in the new CR-V!! Why would you want that?
BTW, the Grand Vitara XL-7's 2.7L V6 engine has been bumped up in horses for '02, now making 183 hp @ 6000 rpms, and 180 ft-lbs of torque @ 4000 rpms. The Grand Vitara's 2.5L V6 makes 165hp @ 6500 rpms, and 162 ft-lbs of torque @ 4000 rpms.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
varmit: It's probably not a very big segment, but Honda could probably attract some shoppers that don't need/want something MDX-sized, but like the ides of being coddled by a mini-SUV with lots of frills for $26-27K. I've always thought that such a beast would slot into the Acura lineup nicely. Have you noticed those shiny-new $22K 2-door hatchbacks rolling into the Acura showrooms lately? I don't think they're having a problem getting people interested in those.
Now if they would offer a low-boost 2.4L turbo, then we're talking... It would offer excellent all around performance, and could probably be built off the existing platform without too much extra beefing up.
Bob
I doubt that will happen, or should happen, for that matter. I would prefer a 3-3.2 liter V6 under the hood of a CRV to get 200-225 HP, than a turbo charged 2.0 liter engine doing it. Turbo charged 3.0 liter V6 would be another thing though.
Varmit made some excellent points about V6 and CRV. Not that Honda can't put a V6 under the hood of CR-V, they won't. Besides chassis reiforcements, added cost etc. the marketing people would look at "what sells". If V6 was a necessity, I'm sure Honda would put one from the Accord. Honda sees Europe as a greater market for CRV, and is moving the European Accord production back to Japan, while the UK plant focuses on CRV. So, engine displacement, and fuel efficiency plays a significant role. And most people wouldn't care for V6 engine anyway (most likely after test driving the 2002 CRV, based on couple of reviews I've read).
BTW Varmit... it seems that 90% of peak torque is available between 2250-5750 rpm, which sounds pretty good. And like I've said before, the 'startup' gearing is nice and short, especially surprising on a Honda with only 6500 rpm redline.
I have no doubt, if Honda wanted to, they could make a superb 2.4L turbo. It would certainly be a much easier and more cost-effective than offering the Accord V6 as an option. As Varmit said, more of the CRV would have to be re-engineered to fit a V6; not necessarily so with only adding turbo. Sure, some beefing up would be need, but not nearly so as if it were to shoe-horn a V6 in there.
Bob
slugline- I agree. I personally wouldn't mind trading off gas mileage for a beefier engine in a nimble package. Of course, we probably represent a very small percentage of buyers.
I heard they will suffer catastrophic damage if the variable valve timing thing malfuntion. This is my only reliability concern with the new CRV.
Diploid, I saw all the pictures too, they look bright but even old CRV tail lamp look very bright in pictures.
accessories, bumper guard, skid plate, step bar, spoiler, fender flare, fog light ,cargo mat,rear angle mirror,ultrasound collision sensor, wind deflector, mud flap, body striping,remote engine starter, chrome side mirror, tire cover, console
http://www.honda.co.jp/ACCESS/automobiles/cr-v/index.html
I can't figure out what the side mirror item is, something prevents water on the mirror? And that antenna like thing in front of the
light(headlight? but pic is not CRV headlight), power antenna ?
Still can't find roof rack.
Those black grills-as I see it, since they are all the same for the various models, it is a way of keeping the cost down. A standardized part. Don't have to have 6 or 8 different colors.
Attention to safety-keeping all those safety features included, sometimes giving up a better design or look, is a good thing. You may finish paying for a car and own it but you never finish paying for car insurance. That goes on forever....
Honda has already ignored that small percent by not offering a V-6. It can't afford to not offer the other options to the U.S. that are available for the Japanese market.
And yes, I know, the new engine is adequate for the new CR-V, but sometimes less just isn't more.
Since most manufacturers advertise a vehicle's net horsepower rating, the number quoted in all the magazine tests and sales literature isn't necessarily how much you're going to have available for shooting away from stoplights or climbing up mountain passes. Keep that in mind the next time you're scanning spec boxes. If you really want to know how powerful a vehicle is, test drive it. If you're looking for an accurate horsepower figure, a dynamometer run is the only way to know for sure.
With that said, Honda tends to make use of each and every little HP that the engine puts out. I'm willing to bet that the 02 CR-V will run circles around the porky Santa Fe, the N/A Xterra, and either of the Suzukis. I'd also guess that a 5 speed model will run with the Tribape. I know I'm comparing a 5 speed to an automatic, but that's the only way that Ford and Mazda sell V6s.
If you need power to tow a trailer or boat, then I agree. The 02 CR-V is pretty lacking, but for performance purposes 160 HP should be fine.
Turbos are not unfamiliar ground for Honda. Their racing developers are actually very good at making use of turbos. A while back, the specific type they used in racing was banned for having an unfair advantage.
They haven't used turbos in passenger cars, because VTEC has similar effects without sacrificing fuel efficiency or emmisions and it doesn't put as much stress on the engine. VTEC is also smaller, lighter, and cheaper than your average turbo.
The point still stands, HP at the flywheel is just a hypothetical indicator for performance.
suvshopper4, the first production car to have VTEC was NSX, back in Fall 1989 (we got the first NSX as a 1991 model in Fall 1990). In 1991, the VTEC was used in Prelude, a year later in Accord (EX) and Civic, and so on.
VTEC by itself is a proven technology, and Honda claims that there have been NO warranty claims on VTEC in its decade old history!
i-VTEC, is the second generation of the VTEC, but I wouldn't have doubts on its reliability. It has been in Japanese market for about a year now (I believe in Honda stream, a mini-minivan). The good thing about it is... the new engine comes with timing chain instead of timing belt (but this has nothing to do with VTEC or iVTEC).
Type-R:
I'd prefer a small V6 over the Type-R engine for good reasons. A Honda type-R is usually a limited volume production, a few hundred per year, plus, it doesn't offer slushbox as an option that 95% of buyers demand. While a 200 HP 2.0 liter I-4 can do the job of a 200 HP 3.0 liter V6, the problem would be lack of a manual transmission, and the perception of the buyers. Which will work against the added cost.
Fullmark:
This model is not a 'higher' end model than the CR-V we get (Performa)... just a different version, with similar option/standard feature list. I agree, VSA, EBD etc. should be offered on CR-Vs in the USA. BTW, did anybody else notice that CRV (EX) has 6-disc in-dash CD changer?
Good luck in building your own dream car!
ejp
A V6 would be nice, but it's hard to convince Honda that they need one. The 4 banger costs less to manufacture, and they're in the top 3 in sales even with the old model.
160hp with 22/26 mpg is a very good balance. Forester is similar and outruns the V6 Sante Fe, Grand Vitara, and XTerra, while bypassing twice as many gas stations.
BTW, in that top 10 list (most efficient), the Forester would rank even higher if you require AWD/4WD and 4 doors. First, I believe.
What surprise would you guys most like to see? I vote for the 3rd row of seats. VSA is a close 2nd.
-juice
Just my thoughts.
My guess is the surprise is the 2.4l engine itself. The JDM CR-V got a 2 liter.
-juice
If you have four kids to haul around, or a big boat to pull, a need of a full time AWD/4WD - you simply have different needs than those this vehicle was designed to accomodate.
as far as an 'R' type CR-V - that's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?? The type R RSX makes virtually all its extra power above 6K RPM. Can you really see driving an SUV like that? Better to just buy an RSX (or better yet, an S2000!) And re turbo, etc.,one of the coolest things about iVTEC is you avoid the added complexity, breakdown potential, premature engine wear, and cost of boosted systems. Not to mention turbo lag, which I find annoying.
I hope the '02 proves to be as elegant a solution to its design challenges as it appears to be from a distance!
I was hoping for VSA as an option. Maybe when they bring back the SE (a guy can dream, can't he?
Dill6 - Well said. With regard to the CR-V Type R that is exactly why I wouldn't expect to see it here in the North American market. In the JDM and in Europe, the high revving performance is not a problem.