Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs

1218219221223224522

Comments

  • Regarding your Lexus example. One is a pick up the other is an SUV (I think, Lexus isn't even on my radar). While the Element is not a traditional SUV like the CR-V it is similar enough as opposed to a pick up vs. an SUV, IMO. So I can't really answer but I will say if I bought the LX470 and two months later they came out with a lower priced SUV type vehicle with the same engine, transmission and AWD system you bet I'd be unhappy.

    Regarding your Subaru example. Was the Legacy out and then they put the same engine in the new Impreza? If so, again I would have a problem with that. Another factor, is the size difference between a Legacy and Impreza the same as the difference between a CR-V and Element? I know the Impreza is quite a bit smaller than the Legacy. If something is out already, hopefully my research will point those things out. But if they launch it after, like the Element, it is a different situation.

    The Element is a lower priced, smaller vehicle. Why doesn't it get a smaller engine? Again I say if next week Honda decided to put the Accord engine in the Civic, you don't think Accord owners would have a problem?

    And no I don't expect an automaker to tell me what future products it has coming (although with the Internet it's getting easier to know). What I expect is when they intoduce a smaller, less expensive vehicle it should have something besides lack of amenities to differentiate it. Something like a different powerplant, something like no AWD or a less sophisticated system, just like the CR-Vs AWD system is different from the Pilot. If the Pilot was out first and then they put its engine and AWD system in the CR-V and charged $7000 less, no one would have a problem? Not the CR-V buyer for sure, but I think the Pilot owner wouldn't like it.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    "Betrayed" is just a poor choice of words?

    What I think I'm hearing, is that you don't feel that Honda should spread this drivetrain around to other models, and that it should be reserved solely for the CRV. That's what mystifies me...

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't think the $16k Elements will have AWD, or even ABS for that matter. So they are not getting the same powertrain you paid $23k for. Just the engine.

    I'm sure there will be more differentiation, too. It'll have a rubber floor with no carpeting, which will turn some people off. It seats 4 instead of 5.

    Bob made a good point, and guess what? I bought a Forester precisely because it got a the bigger engine from the Legacy in a lighter and less expensive package. Did the Forester hurt Outback sales? Surprise, Outback sales went up! Resale values are actually stronger.

    The same could happen with the CR-V. Wild concepts like that bring in showroom traffic. Buyers arrive and see 4 seats and no carpets, and drive off in a CR-V. I'm sure that'll happen a lot.

    Please understand something: I fully respect your opinion, and understand your frustration. If the Element is the bargain you seem to think, then you'll appreciate Honda's strong resale value, and have a perfect excuse to trade-in for a new Element. Or get both! :-)

    Toyota is probably nervous. They already are worried about having older buyers than Honda (8 years older Corolla vs. Civic, for instance). Now they're being surrounded by Honda's SUVs. The RAV4 was a hit until the CR-V arrived. Now the Element just might be the check mate, forcing a mid-cycle update.

    Top it off, the Odyssey has been eating the Sienna's lunch. At least they have a new one on the way.

    And Highlander is really popular, but who thinks the Pilot won't put a huge dent in Highlander sales?

    Honda ought to offer a wagon to hit the Matrix where it hurts.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    you seem to be the only one here with that problem. The Highlander and RX300 share the same running gear, as does the Pilot and MDX. I don't hear anyone around here complaining about that.

    Yes the Legacy had the 2.5L engine first, then it became standard in the Forester, and then in the Impreza. I, being an owner, don't have a problem with that. I also spend most of my time over in the Subaru boards. To this date, I have never heard that complaint from any Subaru Legacy owner, that "lesser" Subarus also use the same engine and AWD. It's a non-issue.

    Sharing engines and drivetrains is as old as the automobile itself. Look at Detroit. Even the very expensive Mercedes S-320 uses the same engine as the lowliest Mercedes C-320.

    Bob
  • I would have no problem if Honda uses the power plant on a similarly priced vehicle. But on one that cost $7000 less? Pricing isn't firm and I realize the top Element will not be $7000 less than the lowest CR-V though so I should really wait to see. But something about this just irks me.

    This is a first for Honda, that I know of. And if you're the buyer of the lower priced vehicle it is great at IMO the expense of the buyer of the higher priced vehicle.

    Again, regarding Lexus/Toyota and Acura/Honda, IMO there is enough differences in favor of the Luxury brands to justify the $ difference. And besides, the MDX will eventually have a different engine than the Pilot, it's a fact.

    You hit it right on the head when you said "look at Detroit". This is something I expect from the Domestics. I just have to accept that Honda is no better than they are.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,710
    by your statement, that you also disagree with Lexus letting Toyota use the same running gear from the RX300, on the much less expensive Highlander? Same with the Acura MDX and Honda Pilot? Same running gear in similar, but yet much less expensive vehicles?

    << I would have no problem if Honda uses the power plant on a similarly priced vehicle. But on one that cost $7000 less? >>

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're comparing a loaded CR-V 5 seater AWD to a stripped FWD Element 4 seater. That is hardly the same. I'm sure you would have considered a top-end Element, for $21k. So $2000 less, not $7000 less, a huge difference.

    You say there is enough difference from a Toyota to a Lexus, but you haven't even seen the Element yet, so how can you say it's not the same way? You might think it's worth paying $2 grand for full carpeting, an extra seat, and rear doors that open independently from the fronts.

    Yes, the MDX will get a bigger engine, but the Highlander coexists with the RX300 and has the exact same engine. It even has a 4" longer wheelbase, and is roomier, and even has a VSC option! Heck, why would anyone buy the Lexus? Yet people do.

    -juice
  • After watching from the shadows for at least I year I have finally decided to register. Have to say I have learned a great deal from all of you, so thanks.

    I am planning to purchase a cr-v ex sometime in the next 2 months, and I am wondering if anyone can point me to some dealers actually willing to deal. I live in the Oklahoma City area, but am willing to drive to Houston, Dallas, Amarillo, Lubbock, or Midland, TX to find the best price. I've read posts that I can't find now about autoinvoice.com coming out of the Tulsa area, so that is a definate possibility. I vaguely recall something about a Houston dealer, but don't remember if it was good or bad.

    Can anyone help me out?

    Thanks,
    Heather
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    PS No fair to stereotype the domestics. Subaru did it. Toyota did it. Honda is doing it.
  • Are you referring to Lexus/Toyota or Toyota/Toyota?, big difference IMO.

    I realize the pricing isn't firm and the highest priced Element will be closer to the lowest CR-V than $7000 but they are still both Hondas. By putting the same engine/trans/AWD system in another Honda branded product, IMO they have diluted the $ differences. If the CR-V was an Acura, that would make it more palatable. Or if the Element was some new brand like Toyota is doing with Scion, again more acceptable. But these are both Hondas.

    And looking at the RX300/Highlander and the MDX/Pilot, regardless of their similarities if you look around you will see lots of people saying why should I pay >$35K for the MDX when I can get the Pilot for less $. Hundreds of posts about that already in the Pilot topic. And people say the same thing about the Highlander. This supports my argument 100%.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Big difference from Toyota to Lexus, but perhaps a big difference from the Element to the CR-V, too. That's all I'm saying. Seating capacity is a big deal.

    Demand is so strong for the MDX it's almost sick. I'm sure Pilot will be a huge success, but I doubt MDXs are going to sit around on Acura lots, no way.

    Lots of people will ask why pay more, and those people will buy Elements. I don't dispute that. But I still think the CR-V will sell well, because it has broader appeal.

    -juice
  • seguyseguy Posts: 133
    image

    image

    Looks like the weathertech deflector doesn't cover as much as the collegehills honda deflector available. I stops about 4 inches shy on each side of the hood. There is about 1.5 inches between the hood and deflector, so cleaning looks to be easy. Also has a lip on the trailing edge of the deflector, looks effective in directing wind, bugs and debris over the windshield. Took 10 mins to install. Hope this helps some decide on which deflector to get. cost $55+$10 shipping.
  • moonkatmoonkat Posts: 265
    ticktock4321:

    You are right. Honda blind-sided you with a decontented CRV to be marketed as the Element. Same motor, and drivetrain options but in a relatively stripped down version using new inexpensive body panels to differentiate the model.

    If you had known about it, you would have waited for the Element instead. You trusted Honda's (Honda/Acura)conservative, predictable model placement and differentiation to ensure that your Honda purchase would retain its niche (pricing, value, prestige) in the Honda line-up.

    What happened to you has not happened to any other Honda owner. Honda needed to attract generation Y buyers and created a cheap spinoff of an existing vehicle. Kind of like when the Acura division was created to attract up-market customers (and profit), but this time without creating a new division, unlike Toyota and their new Scion line. But you didn't see this coming, and you're a gen Y guy so you really missed this boat.

    You pegged Honda's behavior exactly, except for one characteristic. They are exceptionally secretive. You see their new vehicles/products on the street before you read about them. You're info network is dramatically improved with web forums, but still don't even know what the 03 Accord is going to look like and that's due in 6 months.

    So you made your choice on then current info, and your prediction of Honda predictable behavior. Well, your assumptions were flawed and you have to live with them. Who knew Honda was going after the youth market and was determined to make a successful effort.

    Well, actually there has been quite a bit of info on this for more than a year. See forum "Honda Element ("Model X" - miniSUV/Hatchback)":
    moonkat "Honda Element ("Model X" - miniSUV/Hatchback)" Jan 26, 2002 5:55pm

    So, you are right. Honda has not done this before. But, it is your responsibility. You didn't read the signs correctly.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    TickTock - I have no problem with your point of view. I do understand why you feel this way. It just sounds to me like you are over-reacting.

    The Pilot/Ody example: You are focusing on only the engine and AWD. That is where I think you are missing the point. A car is much more than just an engine and drive train. With the Pilot/Ody example, we have two Hondas that share an engine, similar seating configuration, similar demographics (family haulers), similar content (NAV or RES, leather, audio, and climate systems), and even the same colors.

    If the Accord offered the 225 hp engine, I would still buy the TL. The TL offers a quiet ride, better seats, a five speed tranny, better audio, better styling, etc... Well worth the extra 3-4K I spent.

    I also agree with many of the comments made before me. The Element is going to cost $21K. That is not significantly cheaper than the CR-V. We know very little about what the $16K is going to be. It may very well have a 2.0 engine and no AWD. In fact, I'm almost certain it won't have AWD.
  • One of the main reasons we bought our new CRV is the fact (besides the superb reliability of Honda)
    that we can tow it (auto.) behind our motorhome 4 down, but still have plenty of carrying capacity for passengers/stuff if we need it.
    We have compared possible tow cars for a year: Toyota, Ford, Subaru, Suzuki, Chevy, Land Rover and the '02 CRV is head and shoulders above any of them in value, looks, carrying capacity, economy, features AND reliability.
    (We added running boards to it also and that really gives it a new attitude!) For us this redesigned mini ute suited our needs to a "T."
    Absolutely no regrets here, we love it.
  • I really shouldn't even respond. But thanks for making me younger than I am. I'm not Gen Y, not even Gen X, so I'm not the target market for the Element. But again thanks.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    Welcome aboard! We're glad you finally decided to join in the discussion! I am sure our knowledgeable members will be happy to help you out if they can!

    tidester
    Host
    SUVs
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    Don't compare the top of the line crv with the bottom of the line Element... that is your problem with this whole thing.

    If the base Element costs (which it wont be that cheap) 16,000 then compare that to the base model of the crv which costs 18,800. The 2800 difference gives you a smoother ride, ac, cd, power locks and windows. Who knows if that stuff will come std with the element. My guess is not, look at the civic models.

    If you wanna compare the 23k crv, then compare it to the element that costs the most, probably around 21k.

    Your comparison is flawed because of the way you are looking at it. You can't compare a top of the line crv to a bottom of the line element. If you do that then I am suprised I am not hearing...

    How come I paid 23k for a crv, when I could have gotten the crv for 18.8k? I paid over $4000 more for my crv with the same drive train.

    I hope my language doesn't come across harshly..... I am merely participating in the debate.
  • Your points are valid and I think I even addressed them somewhat. I fully understood what trim line I was buying and how it differed from the others that were available. It's not like they only offered the EX and then two months after I bought they came out with the 2WD LX (although some think this is what they will do with the Pilot). If varmint is correct and the $16K Element has a smaller engine and no AWD, then yes my logic is flawed. But will it? Not from what I have read. And that is very un Honda like. In what vehicle other than the Accord do they offer two different engines? The Civic I-4 and Accord I-4 both use the same displacement through the line, just with an increase in hp (I don't mean they are the same engines).

    I think the problem that many are missing is that these are both Honda branded vehicles.

    So if the Accord had the same engine and tranny as your TL and both were badged Honda, you wouldn't have a problem paying more for heated seats (and a few other things as well)? People went back and forth on the Accord V6 vs. the TL thread, and what I got out of it was that people were willing to pay more for the TL because it was an Acura and it had among other things, a bigger engine and a better transmission. Eliminate those differences and would people still think the TL is worth the extra dollars? I really don''t think so.

    And no dave your language wasn't harsh. Really I think this whole discussion has been pretty good, no bad blood I hope.
  • moonkatmoonkat Posts: 265
    Neither am I, but I'm fascinated by the functionality, shape and execution of this econobox.

    The toughest choice will be choosing between the Element and CRV, when the time comes, and having to pay the same price for either one comparably equipped (AWD models). CRV can be gotten discounted, but the Element will likely command no less than MSRP due to its limited (50k) production.

    Common sense will tell you (me) that the CRV would be a better value at the same price, but good judgement does not always prevail.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    Ticktock: Actually, I do think I can understand you just a wee bit. Little pangs of envy, regret, etc. are rather normal after making such a big purchase. I can tell you for a fact, however, that Honda has not let every CR-V owner down. I am an owner of a 2000 EX, and I didn't feel "betrayed" when Honda decided to bestow its i-VTEC mojo on you folks arriving late to the CR-V party. . If I follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then Honda should have put a less-powerful engine into the CR-V LX as well. After all, those cheapskate buyers are paying $4000 less, right?

    In fact, I'm going to extend your differentiation scenario a bit: Remember, the Element is going into production later this year, which means it's coming in as a 2003 model with the puported 160-hp engine. Let's say that Honda decides to drop a 200-hp V6 into the CR-V EX for model year 2003. You want differentiation between models sold at the same time . . . that would make it happen to be sure. But I don't think it would make you feel any better, would it?

    When we make a purchase as consumers, we are only getting the best deal we find available at that time. There will always be something better/cheaper around the corner. It's the best way to lure us back into the dealerships.
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    The i-vtec engine that is in the new crv is 160hp. We all know that.... but that engine can be tweaked to generate 200 HP and still remain a 4 cylinder with descent fuel efficiency! One of the Acura's (i can't think of the name off hand and I am too busy to look it up at the moment) has both the 160 and 200 HP for an option!

    It is essentially the same engine...basically goes something like this...

    The 160: uses the intelligent part on one end of the engine stroke.

    The 200: uses the intelligent part on both ends of the engine stroke.

    Honda will probably introduce the 200HP engine next year after the element has been out for a while....

    Now, ticktocks point becomes clearer.... ;)
  • daveghhdaveghh Posts: 495
    http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_011205.htm


    Scroll down a little over halfway for the reference to the two different but same engines!


    Look at above post by me to see what I am talking about.

  • canadianclcanadiancl Posts: 1,078
    Honda has "betrayed" me many times. Most recently by sticking in the 146hp motor in the CR-V in 1999 less than 2 years after I bought my '97. And they also included a proper clock and lighted window switches, and OD cancel button. Man, was I green with envy. But what can you do? I guess I had a choice to trade up. Can't stop progress, even if it is tainted with corporate greed!
  • The situation you describe is IMO different. The 2G CR-V was a new model that replaced the 1st generation CR-V. I had an Accord in the last year of its run. I'm crazy but I'm not that crazy to feel bad that they came out with a new model. The Element is a new, distinct model (despite sharing many of the same, well...elements as the CR-V).

    And I explained my reasoning as to why I have no issue with the CR-V having a $4000 spread. It was known, they didn't bring out the less expensive version later. Happens all the time. Accord has an approximately $5000 spread with the I-4.

    And daveghh hit on my exact point as to why I don't think the Element will use two different engines (different hp maybe but the same displacement). As to the AWD, Honda is secretive but I'm thinking something would be known if the lower model won't be AWD.

    When they start naming a syndrome after you, it's probably time to back off. Thanks for listening everyone.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    seguy: the deflector looks nice. From that angle, the CR-V looks quite different than the Pilot.

    Ticktock: be disgruntled all you want, it's your right, never mind us. "Dis" Honda and "grunt" all you want, you'll probably feel better. :-)

    To answer your question: if the TL didn't have a 5 speed tranny, and the more powerful engine, the extra features, and the longer warranty that comes with being an Acura, well, then it would be an Accord V6 and be priced the same!

    -juice
  • rburnardrburnard Posts: 28
    daveghh: Just to clarify, yes the Acura RSX shares the same i-VTEC engine as the 02 CR-V but to say the CR-V can be tweaked to 200hp based on that is a bit misleading.
    Here are some specs:

    CRV vs RSX Type S
    Displacement: 2.4 vs 2.0
    Horsepower: 160@6000rpm vs 200@7400rpm
    Torque: 162@3600rpm vs 142@6000rpm

    The RSX version has been tuned as more of a racing engine whereas the CRV is more of a hauler.
    I think Honda would be hard pressed to tune the 2.4 much higher and still offer high torque at low rpm AND have good fuel mileage.

    -Rob
  • I think in my scenario I said some things would still be different on the TL, like heated seats, auto-dimming mirror, etc. You know, similar to the amenities which will make the CR-V $2-7000 more than the Element. Would you still pay more for the Honda TL in that case? Because the "new" Honda would certainly have two different models. Corporate greed and all. That's how I view the CR-V/Element.

    Someone mentioned the '99 and the mid generation changes. Again, IMO a different situation. The '99 didn't cost less than previous CR-Vs. It wasn't a new vehicle. They consistantly make changes to their vehicles mid generation. Maybe not always as significant as a 20 hp bump, but they change the styling slightly or whatever.

    I am not disgruntled. I have a fine vehicle that hopefully will give me many years of trouble free service. I just wish they hadn't put the same mechanicals in a vehicle that cost thousands less. Doesn't seem that off the wall to me. Sums it up.

    And to rburnard, I thought I was pretty clear. It's not that I am upset that I could have had an Element for less $ than a CR-V, I'm pretty sure I would never touch one. It's the fact that a lower priced vehicle will (potentially) have the same mechanicals. It will be a first for Honda within the Honda line in the US that I know of (that should be a good enough disclaimer).
  • rburnardrburnard Posts: 28
    Up here in Canada the EX with leather lists at $32,200. Add tax and a few options and that easily comes to $40,000. Am I upset that the Element is going to be cheaper? No way! I love my EX-L and I didn't buy it simply for the engine and drivetrain. I bought it for the overall package and while the Element looks intriguing it is not something I would consider buying if given the opportunity to cross-shop it before I bought my V. The overall package IMO leaves something to be desired. It is a niche Honda is after and not the average CR-V buyer. Apparently you fall into that niche and if you're that unhappy with it than you should probably trade down when the Element comes out. I don't understand how you can get so upset about it and we don't even have the specs yet. All we have are pictures and a couple tidbits of information regarding the engine. What about the rest of the vehicle?

    -Rob
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Dougalsmom - Sorry, I'm not in your area. If you find a dealer who is willing to negotiate, I may be able to share some possible buying strategies, but actual dealerships are out of my reach.

    Gaveghh - The CR-V's 2.4L engine is based on the same block as the RSX, but it has been bored out and stroked. Making it generate more power would probably require making it spin faster. That's how they do it with the RSX-s engine which is a 2.0L block. With cylinders as big as the CR-V's, they would have difficulty moving that mass at high speeds. The bigger engine would shake a whole more than the smaller one. So there are limits.

    That said, I suspect they could get another 20hp out of it without making it too rough. 180hp wouldn't be so bad in an SE trim level.

    TickTock - I'm just guessing about the possibility of a smaller engine in the el-cheapo version of the Element. Don't quote me on it. With the AWD, yes, I am certain the lowest model will not have it. The cheapest CR-V doesn't have AWD and most other Hondas (across the ponds) follow the same pattern.
Sign In or Register to comment.