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

12930323435522

Comments

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Karen - Well... yeah, I guess there could be an interest. The CR-V is still a hot seller and Edmunds is the best consumer site around. However, most folks who already own CR-Vs have become firmly entrenched over at that site-that-shall-remain-nameless.


    JM2C

  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,024
    But do they offer a Honda Community Page? Take a look at Subaru Community Page as an example. Take a run through the Owner's Clubs and see what other clubs are doing.


    KarenS
    Host
    Owner's Clubs

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,296
    maybe not, but they do have this rather, er, "strange" shall we say, Spy Pics article....perhaps it's best that it stays over there, lol.

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    I love you too, Steve. =)

    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. :-)
  • shaq2kobeshaq2kobe Posts: 42
    stay away from those MDXs, that could be trouble w/long waits and overpricing dealers.lol.But its still a great vehicle........
  • I have a 1988 Accord with 150,000+ miles. Bullet proof engine. Has new clutch, tarns and disc. items. How does the CR 4-wheel drive system work? How bullet proof?
    Any weak links in the CR? I'm looking at a 1997 CR with 50000 miles at a dealer.

    IA Paul
  • marlowe2marlowe2 Posts: 4
    Kind of hate to have to follow that, but...
    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
  • shaq2kobeshaq2kobe Posts: 42
    when you say replacement for '02, what do you mean? Do you mean I could buy a '02 and then have the engine replaced when the hybrid engines become available? or do you mean they will just make the CRV a hybrid vehicle? I would love to get a hybrid CRV, especially for the 100 miles a day I travel........lol
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Paul - In Consumer Report's latest car issue, they rated the CR-V as the most reliable vehicle (of any class) in the US market. Last year it was rated as the most reliable SUV, but was ranked in the top 7 or 8 overall. The RAV4 (old model) has also scored impressively high.

    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.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    LadyChaos - Nope, I'm not sure about anything regarding the '02 CR-V. I posted over at the SUV.COM forum to see if any of the other "'02 Prophets" had comments. =)

    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.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    My insurer offers quotes online, so I took a couple of minutes to compare two hypothetical situations based on my profile. The only variable was that one quote had a 2WD CR-V LX, and the other had an LX with RT4WD. (I drive an EX in real life.)

    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.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    Is there something I'm missing about this concept? I took a look at the Subaru page, but I'm still unsure of what they have over there that is not possible in the regular Town Hall or elsewhere on Edmunds. Maybe you can complete this sentence:

    "If a CR-V Owners Club is created, we will finally be able to _____________."
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    LadyK - The torque ratings for the Civic si and Integra are 130 and 142, respectively. TOV has some info on both. You're right about the HP figure for the hatch.

    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.
  • Based on the comments on 4X4 (or lack thereof), I guess if you want to use the CRV for SUV use, you should drive backwards off road? Good grief!!!

    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.
  • I am not sure any longer about the Porsche 944, but I know it made plenty of torque from a 4 banger. Maybe they should take the 2.2 from the Accord and work from there.

    As the old saying goes: "THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!".
  • "Last night, we took the Jeep to a bonfire party. The new Jeep provided the tunes. The best part was getting to climb a big hill leading up to the party. The hill was almost 40 degrees and I climbed it in 4LO (just because I didn't have any other occasion to use it yet). I later went back up it in 4HI, but in 4LO, it feels like you could climb a wall! Coming down the hill in 4LO was a treat in that I let it idle down in 1st gear and just crept along, allowing the engine to slow our descent. Everone else had to take a pass and go around the long way and one highlight was watching a friend try to climb it in their CRV. After 2 failed attempts, I yelled to him that I had a strap and could pull him up if he wanted! He later acknowledged that the CRV was fine for suburban roads but wasn't a 4 wheeler. I then said, "but at least you can take the top off... No, wait a minute, that's out Jeep, too." He said the only way he'd forgive me for being so cruel was if I'd let him drive."
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Sasquatch - That's great! Got a point?

    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?
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    ps. Last month I saw a Wrangler traveling from Southern MA to Northern VT filled with four people and two greyhounds in the back.... Oh wait, that was my CR-V.
  • shaq2kobeshaq2kobe Posts: 42
    he really wants to get a CRV but he doesn't want to admit it, that's why he keeps posting here.hehehe
  • I think that whoever invented that technology should be paid handsomely indeed.

    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).
  • The CRV is pointless, if you wanted a groecery getter than get a station wagon. You don't need the clearance, you don't need that pointless prissy roof rack. It just pisses me off when I'm driving my Jeep and I see P.O.S SUV wanna be's. I even saw a CRV TRYING to pull a camper!!!!! Really, you don't look cool, and no matter what you think you are just a Posser. So next time you are driving around think about how much utility you paid for and I bet you will realize that you are just driving an Accord with an ugly body and really ugly grille.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Actually, I'm driving a Civic with an ugly body and grill. Eight years from now ask yourself how much utility you paid for when you look at the immobile pile-o-rust sitting in your driveway... To each his own.

    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).
  • beatfarmerbeatfarmer Posts: 244
    First, I would like to say that SUV is possibly the worst marketing term ever created. Years ago, we just called them wagons (not station). Some may have know them as panel vans. But I guess those terms weren't sexy enough.

    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).
  • What is a GV?

    I am not sure if I can wait for the Liberty, nor do I trust a new model, especially a Jeep. If it happens in the next month or two, maybe. Otherwise, I have a good deal on a '97 Trooper. A little bigger than a CRV, but at least it is a Japanese car which means more reliable.

    Sorry if this post comes through twice, but I had to redo it, fixing the Japanese equivalent of "Swede", "Finn", or "Yank"; because I got slapped by the board censors for using what was termed "derogatory abbreviation".
  • namrag1namrag1 Posts: 10
    I have seen several CRV's where the owner has placed an EX emblem on them. I assume the emblem is from a Civic or Accord. Does anybody have any ideas on where to get those emblems? The Honda parts sites all offer the special gold or black chrome ones. I have yet to find one offering the normal silver chrome.
    Wonder why Honda places the EX, SE etc on their cars, but not on the CRV...
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    "GV" is the abbreviation often used here for Grand Vitara.

    The Trooper is an excellent beast. However, I'd say that it is considerably larger than the CR-V. One of the magazines (MotorTrend or Car & Driver) did a comparison test a while back. They set their limits using exterior dimensions and cargo capacity to determine which vehicles fit into what they considered the "full-size" category. The Trooper made it along with the Tahoe, Expedition, Landcruiser and a few others. The Hummer did not, due to its relatively small cargo capacity.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Namrag - I've wondered about that as well. It'd probably be fairly easy to find some at a junk yard. I'm not sure where they can be ordered, but a few are being offered as door prizes for the Mid Atlantic CR-V meet in Baltimore. If you're on the proper coast, check it out.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    I drive my CR-V around metro Houston, well away from any mountainous regions. So I guess I don't really need the ground clearance. . . . well, except for those episodes of street flooding (like we're expecting this afternoon) . . . or those steep driveways and pavement grades the road engineers like to put in for drainage around here . . . or the persistent irregularities in the pavement due to road construction. . . . and that's just what my CR-V goes through Monday through Friday. :)

    I have just been reminded of why the underside of that station wagon I used to drive awhile back looked all beat up after a few years.

    By the way, I find it implausible that a mature person of driving age could actually get "pissed off" in real life simply by what another person chooses to drive. So I'll kindly write off your comments as online "posing."
  • guxuguxu Posts: 32
    That's just my guess: CR-V was designed as a daily used car not a real truck. So the comfort features are more important. However, CR-V EX even SE does not provide many upgrades. That's why they do not put different emblems on them.

    Back to several years ago, some base models (like Accord and Camry) did not even have A/C, PW/PL, or audio, while top models had auto A/C, Sunroof and etc. I guess it makes more sense for them to distinguish those models.
  • Good one, the Navigator as a "rock crawler". Ha ha ha ha. Rock breaker, maybe.

    Prissy roof racks? Where are you supposed to put your deer? canoe? kayak? bikes? skis? spare water, gas, and tires? tent? Doesn't sound "prissy" to me!

    If Ford could add a little lift, some bigger tires, and some suspension to the Escape, it just might make my garage.

    Still looking. (at Wrangler, Trooper, Xterra, Escape, Montero (maybe), ...)
Sign In or Register to comment.