Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
BUT, if you then decide on the '02, you will have to wait to get a deal. The new Civics are discounted nicely these days, not so when they first came out.
I've heard that child seat tether anchors are standard on the 2001. I have a 2000 EX...anyone know what type of anchors these are and if they are actually welded somehow or just bolted? If they are bolted to the frame, could I get them for my 2000?
Thanks for any info.
Love the car it is great just a little too small for me and my needs. Wow Honda quality it just does not get any better than that. From someone that has put some miles on one they are great!!!
It's a great truck (car?), but did you notice how cheap the interior material is? Just touch the ceiling and sun visor, you will know what I am saying.
The Child Seat Anchors are actually near the top of the hatch glass. I have not tried it yet, but will the belt look ugly and block part of the rear view?
TIA for your help.
Joncod - I've found that the most comfortable driving position is to set the seats bolt upright. It didn't take me long to get used to it. My wife fought it for a while, but she's gotten used to it.
Jderr - Tether anchor points can be found in the ceiling at the back of the CR-V. There are two gray plastic plugs. These can be removed to uncover two screw holes. The tethers are screwed into these. Your owner's manual will describe the exact location.
p.s. All you Southern New Englanders should should take a look at what is being offered at the Mid Atlantic CR-V meet in June. See the link at http://hondasuv.com for details.
IIRC, vehicles with smaller engines are typically configured with lower rear axle ratios to make up for the lower horsepower/torque. This may be why a smaller engine may feel fairly quick when driving around town, but it may feel a bit out of breath at highway speeds.
I hope this helps a little. If you have more questions, may I recommend that you ask the same question in the Maintenance & Repair message board, and perhaps share the answer with us here?
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Thanks!
I don't know if it counts as "Boston area", but Peter's in Nashua is good (they also sell Nissan, Isuzu, Kia, and Hyundai, so you have some comparisons). Or also, try Lundgren in Auburn.
Your mileage may vary. This is the most comfortable position I've found, but I'm 6'2".
Kwh - The new RAV4 is the one that scored way at the bottom of the list. Right now, the Escape is actually the least expensive to repair. The old Soob Forester also scored well.
The CR-V did not earn a stellar rating, but I believe the final sum was about half what the RAV4 costs to repair. As far as rankings go, I think the CR-V falls somewhere in the middle. You can look it up on the IIHS web site.
No one knows anything about the 2002 CR-V, so the location of the spare is a mystery.
In the NHTSA safety tests, the CR-V earned 3 five star ratings and 1 four star. Its IIHS offset crash was "marginal". The Forester scores highest in that test. Given the new Civic's impressive performance in the IIHS test, I think it's safe to say that the next CR-V will improve its offset score.
A year or two back, Honda completed construction of the industry's largest indoor crash testing facility. If I recall correctly, it houses eight different tracks. This facility allows them to ignore foul weather and test cars on a much more regular schedule. You'll note that every recent Honda design has earned very high marks in crash tests.
Any info would be greatly appreciated!
(Thanks also for comments on my previous message)
marlowe
Answers to Three Tough Leasing Questions
There's some more advise on our Leasing page, including a DIY example if you're the type who likes to do their own taxes :-)
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
No, it doesn't mean you will be forced to move from this discussion. It will always remain here in SUVs. Take a look through the Owner's Clubs board to see what other clubs are doing.
Let me know if you are interested!
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
JM2C
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I'm not holding a six cylinder and saying, "this internet is too small for the both of us, partner". I just don't want you to go through the effort of setting up something as complex as all that, just because I'm interested. (I know how heavily my opinion is weighted around here and I have to be careful with such a powerful tool).
Hey, why doesn't Edmunds send a few delegates to the Mid Atlantic CR-V meet in MD? They're always looking for sponsors, too. :-)
Any weak links in the CR? I'm looking at a 1997 CR with 50000 miles at a dealer.
IA Paul
Ladychaos: wondering if, since it isn't a true 4WD, are insurance rates affected by choosing the 4WD over the 2WD? Is gas mileage affected by one over the other?
Thanks,
marlowe
The 4 wheel drive system (RT4WD) isn't really a factor in the reliablility or mpg average for the CR-V. As Ladychaos pointed out, it acts like 2WD almost all of the time. Originally, the 2WD was given a slightly higher mileage rating than the 4WD. This was not because of it's mechanical effects on performance, rather it was the fact that the 2WD weighs less than the 4WD. The actual difference turned out to be negligible and was retracted. If MPG is your concern, owners have found that the 5 speed has a slight advantage over the automatic.
What are the mechanics of the system? It acts like a 2WD until there is a difference in speed between the front and rear axles. That is how it detects slippage. If the front tires are moving faster than the rears, then the system activates. The sytem will activate in reverse and will dissengage to allow antilock brakes to function. Also, the transfer of power to the rear wheels is progressive. The more slippage it detects, the more power it sends to the rear wheels.
How does it activate? There is a drive shaft leading to the rear differential that is spinning at all times. This shaft is engaged when pressure is built up in the viscous fluid in the differential. That fluid pushes wet clutch packs together and creates a link between the drive shaft and the rear axle. (Well, it's a bit more complex than that, but I want to keep this simple.)
How effective is it? Certainly it is better (in low traction situations) to have power going to your rear wheels before the slipping starts. For this reason, the CR-V is often maligned for having a slow system.
Despite the fact that I've never been stuck myself, reading these boards had me convinced that the system was gawd-awful slow. However, I had the chance to study it in action while at the Bradford, PA meet in the Allegheny Forest back in March. I watched a driver try to get unstuck and was able to see RT4WD in action repeatedly. It made me a believer once again. The rear tires engaged before the front tires had spun more than half a turn. In may cases, it appeared to be instantaneous.
Although I've owned a CR-V for two years, I'm always the one driving it in low traction conditions. I'd never been able to watch it happen before.
Okay, is that situation normal? Armed with this new experience, I asked a CR-V engineer who visits the CR-V IX forum. (Employed by Honda to develop fixes for any problems. What a boring job.) I asked if it was possible that the RT4WD was reacting faster than normal because the fluid was preheated. He said, "nope". He suggested that it's possible the clutch packs may have become "grabby" from recent use, but he doubted that this would have a significant effect. He also noted that overheated clutch packs would result in a greater possibility that the packs would slip. Ths discussion happened back at the end of March or maybe the first week of April if anyone would like to look it up in the CR-V IX archives. I'm writing from memory.
As for off-road ability... The CR-V will never compete with the likes of the Jeep Cherokee or Izusu Trooper. But for mild to moderate off-road use, it will go places that surprise many beast drivers (once again, note the 3 articles at the CR-V IX, this month alone). The Escape/Tribute and Sante Fe might be better choices due to their permanent AWD features (Ford's is like the CR-V, but it can be locked for low speed use. Nice!) I disagree with LadyChaos about the Forester, though. While it has a better AWD system, it's ground clearance is below average and its approach/departure angles are downright poor. It has a lesser chance of getting stuck on level, slick surfaces, but a greater chance of getting high-centered or stopped in its tracks by an obstacle. Traction problems will force you to use a $30 come-along. Rocks, ruts, and dead wood will force you to turn around.
Recently, there was a posting by a designer who "claims" to have driven the new CR-V. He reported 186 hp from the new engine. Naturally, we were a bit skeptical. However, our dear friend the CR-V Engineer (mentioned above) confirmed that some folks have driven one! He's bound by corporate policy to stay silent, of course. (CR-V IX posts start on April 20, but get very silly after that.)
Anyway, if the 186hp quote is correct, then I doubt we are talking about the 2.0L that I've suggested. It would have to rev up above 7,000 rpms to achieve that. The new hatchback Civic SI makes 180 hp from that same engine and would serve as a good preview. I doubt Honda will put something that revs that high in the CR-V.
My guesses about the i-VTEC 2.0 are based on the fact that the engine fits in the Civic platform, it has more power than the current block, and it conforms to Honda's policies about fuel efficiency and emissions. Also Honda is a conservative company and will probably not completely change a design that is still selling like crazy.
I understand why people like the 200 hp Escape, but folks have been happy for the past five years with efficient four bangers. The real world MPG figures for the Escape/Tribute are getting out to the public and people are listening. The new RAV4 seems to be selling quite well with a less powerful 2.0L than the one I'm suggesting. Power is not the only thing that gets poeple to buy these cars. Remember, Honda is in the business of selling cars. They do not make money solely by putting smiles on the faces of speed thirsty journalists. My guess is that Honda will put in an engine that will remove criticisms about power, but not much more. Honda still has to sell Izusu Passports for another year. When they introduce the next generation "Passport", buyers who want a Honda V-6 will have their truck.
As for hybrids... Honda is considering an IMA hybrid CR-V. They have said so in press releases (see TOV for details). However, the first thing Honda will do is try a hybrid Civic model. If that one sells well enough, they may introduce the hybrid CR-V later on. We're talking a few years at least, folks.
Under a policy with a rather generous amount of coverage beyond the state mandate, the RT4WD vehicle's premium was a dollar per month (roughly 1.5%) higher than the one without. Keeping in mind that the RT4WD LX is a more costly wagon to begin with, I'd say the impact of 4WD on insurance is negligible in the case of the CR-V.
"If a CR-V Owners Club is created, we will finally be able to _____________."
As for the S2K, it makes 156ftlbs in the states. In the homeland, the S2K has 175ftlbs, but they are not LEVs.
I think that 186 hp is too much to expect from the i-VTEC 2.0L and keep the powerband low enough for the CR-V. That's why I think that, IF the 186 hp rumor is true, then we are talking about a completely different block.
Also, not only is HAVING torque important, it is also important that it be AVAILABLE AT LOW RPM's, where it is most needed off road, climbing hills, pulling trailers, accelerating, etc.
As the old saying goes: "THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!".
I don't think anyone here, other than yourself, has tried to pass off the CR-V as a true off-road capable vehicle. While I find the CR-V's ability enough to suit my needs, I always preface my comments with something like "mild to moderate off-road use", or, "it's no Jeep, but..". Other than proving that you have a firm grasp on the obvious, I don't see your point.
I also find it amusing that you mention Porsche's high torque four banger in the same post where you conclude that there's no substitute for displacement.
Lastly, there is a point to building torque at high rpms. While the low end is the prefered place for torque in off-road use, the high end is the place for on-road vehicles. To quote a link passed around here last year, "it's better to make torque at high rpms because you can take advantage of gearing". Since the CR-V is used on pavement 99.9% of the time, the high rpm design is actually the better of those two options. Obviously the best option is to have torque at both the high and low end. That's what VTEC technology allows an engine to do.
Based on your needs for off-road use, I'm kinda wondering why you keep posting here? There are plenty of good solid off-roaders on the market. Have you taken a look?
I think you are right. I love my Honda, and would love another. I am just trying to gauge ALL user experiences (not just vomit's).
Sasquatch - I guess I came down on you a little too hard, there. Sorry about that. It just seems pretty obvious to me that you'd be better off with the Cherokee, Xterra, or or even the GV. If you can wait for it, the new Liberty would be perfect (unless too expensive).
Second, no vehicle is pointless (unless it fails in the primary goal of providing transportation, and even then it may be considered on other merits).
As for being a Poser, well I would consider it a greater injustice to own a vehicle capable of great off-road prowess and never take it off the beaten path. I do hope thay you drive your Jeep to its fullest potential (if you haven't rolled it yet, you're not trying hard enought).