Having bought Jeeps for many years and pricing out a Honda Cr-V while shopping for my next vehicle, I find they are overpriced for what you receive. For example, items which are all options on the CR-V come standard on my Jeep such as body side mouldings, engine block heater, fog lights, roof rack, tow package....when you start adding all of these options to the base price....it's a bit much...then the dealerships won't budge on the window sticker price...what gives?
Options? Honda does business the way all imports used to. If you want certain factory installed equipment (alloy wheels, moonroof etc.) you move up in trim line. "Options" such as body side mouldings, etc. have rarely ever been factory installed on any Honda. They are dealer installed accessories.
You are used to the domestics' way of equipping vehicles. Not sure about versus Jeep but Honda vehicles are typically very cost competitive when comparably equipped to a domestic. Add this or that option to a Jeep and see how much you are really paying.
The '07 CRV is a re-designed model. If you shop wisely, you may get $1000 off MSRP. If you are willing to wait until spring you will probably get closer to invoice (+$500-$1000).
I agree that a Honda is probably more expensive than an equally equipped Jeep Liberty (I'm assuming you are comparing this model) after rebates. Keep in mind Hondas have some of the highest residual values in the market so your money is not wasted come trade-in time. Also, they have great lease specials.
As far as fog lights, tow package, etc. Honda never has these as standard features on any models. Even their top of the line EX-L models won't have fog lights.
On the flip side, Honda's lower end cars always come standard with ABS, side curtain air bags, and 5 speed automatics. Other competitors require option packages just to equal a base Honda.
I am sort of disappointed in the redesign of the CRV: the liftgate is nicer ... but the maneuverability is much worse (turning diameter is now larger than the Odyssey) and they took away the manual transmission option.
Any possibility of a manual transmission option in the future?
I test drove a RAV4 limited 4x4 with the options leather package yesterday. I found that the Honda CRV was better in braking, firmer feel. Interior of the CRV is far superior and classy and an equivalent Toyota is more expensive but has extra features such as power seat, dual climate control but no satellite radio. There are lots of RAV4 on the lot and eager dealers compared to spoilt Honda dealers. I booked a CRV in Decembe and is due in mid-march! I am having a hard time reconciling between a Toyota and 07 CR-V EX-L. I was surprised Consumer reports kept CR-V at number 3 spot after the RAV4s. Another important point (I drive 100 miles daily) is that the CRV is more fuel efficient than the RAV4 4Cyl but same as the RAV4 6cyl (on the highway). CRV has a larger turning radius than the Toyota even for the 17" wheels. I am not sure if the upgraded wheels on the CR-V 07 are the reason for the larger turning radius?
I traded an 02 CRV EX. for the 07 EX. My best friend bought an 07 RAV4 limited 4cyl.
I absolutely agree about the interior.
I think the RAV is a very nice vehicle. The biggest factor for me was the difference in the rear hatch. The 07 CRV hatch opens upward with very small effort, I never liked the door type hatch on my 02 V and the current RAV is the same, with a 17 inch tire attached that partly impedes vision and adds weight when opening.
As you mentioned the 07 RAV limited has a few extras which is paid for by a $3000. difference in the MSRP sticker.
I believe the RAV4's turning circle advantage applies only to the 4cyl, 16" wheel model. The 6cyl model comes with 17" wheels and the turning diameter jumps 2ft to 36.8ft, close to the CR-V.
The change from '06 to '07 seems to be the result of larger wheels.
CR takes their own measurements... and of course uses methods no one else in the industry would duplicate.
The issue of maneuverability, as presented in the original post, was directed at moving around in tight spaces. I suspect the new CR-V is not as good as the old one in that single regard.
Maneuverability in terms of handling at speed is another issue. On that score, the new vehicle is supposed to be even better than previous CR-Vs.
It looks like the 07 CRV currently comes with a manual transmission option in the UK (www.honda.co.uk). Granted that Europe in general appreciates manuals more than the US, but what is the speculation that Honda will make the MT available in the US next year on the CRV?
Honda has made changes to transmissions within a mid cycle freshening, i.e 4 speed AT to 5 speed AT but not sure about adding an alternate transmission. Next year would be too soon for any changes anyway as someone pointed out.
They'll add the manual in 09 if past models are any indication.
Please explain in further detail.
The previous two generations of the CR-V started with a manual transmission. As I said, changes have been made to existing transmission during a model run but I'd like an example of when a manual was added to a lineup where it didn't exist from the start.
I knew that, but I'd add an asterisk as that was the launch of a new model being brought over from Japan and they did things a bit differently. But you are right.
I'm still driving my '97CRV, going strong with +130K miles on it...went to see the new ones at a dealership recently. The CRV I have has been a real workhorse on our small farm. It's just enough "SUV" to get things done-I can take it to the feed store on a rainy day, pull a small drag around the field, make it through muddy ground at a competition. It gets decent mileage while running the kids to and fro, and looks presentable enough (especially after I ripped the dry-rotted tire cover off the spare recently). No major problems, though it does a have a slow radiator leak and that will need replacing very soon.
Have to say I was a bit (actually more than a bit) disappointed with the '07 redesign. Seems perfect for commuters with a "city" job, but they appear to have really taken the country out of it. The table is gone (I know, I can always throw another table in the back), and so is my "secret" Santa hatch that was also very handy for stowing valuables out of sight. The "cargo cover" seems flimsy, and not destined to last as long as the car if it gets changed around alot. But the worst thing is that the undercarriage seems quite alot lower to the ground--it might add stability and increase mileage on the highway, but I don't see this new model going where the older one went off the road.
I'm very reluctant to exchange my little burro for this fancy new hothouse flower. And the Element is WAY too Spartan to consider (have to admit to not looking that closely at it).
SO--was the demographic for Gen 1-2 so undesireable that they had to go for a whole different class of buyers? Will anyone who actually USED their Gen 1-2 CRV want the new one? I sure don't....Guess I'll be going for 200K...
I had a 1999 model for 7 years. I've come to pretty much the same conclusion. This new one is very nice, but not quite right for me.
You can probably find a used G2 model (2004 or 2005) fairly easily. Those are much closer to the original in terms of utility. Or, the new RAV4 is a decent option.
It's a different world than in 97. The new CRV is more convenient for most people and better for potential fuel price increases. Not too big a crv market for farm trucks.
I agree with the other posters. The '97 and the '07 are world's apart in form and function. But that's the way the market has gone. It isn't that the 1G (1st generation) or 2G (second generation) were undesirable (they did sell practically everyone they produced), times have changed.
I'm not sure what you should replace the '97 CR-V with for use on your farm. Even the small pickups of yore have morphed into mid size or greater.
Assuming it still meets your needs, I'm sure your '97 will last for a long time. But it is always nice to get a new vehicle.
We picked up our CR-V May 7. About May 8th my wife decided that she hates the headrests, and they gotta go! At this point they are reversed. After doing so, we noticed MANY with this option. If the Accord ones fit, I may try that route - I really hate going without them entirely, which is what turning them around amounts to.
I have found that leaning the seat back two or three notches has helped me quite a bit. Also if I keep my butt back in the seat, which means moving the seat closer than I would normally to the gas pedal,the headrest is not that bad. I have also found that if I sit on a cushion, it raises my head and is more comfortable. The accord headrest will give you about and inch more space. I just got back from a 18 hr drive from Florida to CT and the headrest was not an issue. I think by sitting higher in the seat and leaning it back should help your wife. By the way I averaged 28 MPG on my trip. Good Luck!!!!
I assume they hold off on the manual to build demand. They get one year of producing one less model. Makes the difficult first year easier. Then in year two they sell more of them. I didn't buy the 97 for exactly that reason, and jumped on the 98.
I bought a new CRV this Sunday. The headrest is completely unusable!! I too have turned it around. I'm 5ft.7". I've always been told that it is important to keep your head, neck and spine straight. That's impossible with the head restraint in place. I push the seat back as far as it will go. I keep the seat back fairly vertical and with the head restraint in place, my chin is almost on my chest, and I'm looking straight at my feet!! Help???
I'm the same size and I couldn't be comfortable in a vertical seat back position(top position). In that position, you can raise the head rest to give the head more of a rearward position. Even in this position my head is near straight up. I have my seatback a couple of notches back and the head rest down low. I don't think my head "rests" on the head rest normally but does touch sometimes up high on the head. It's more of a safety item. it definitely doesn't push the head that much to have my chin in my chest.
It's a bit of semantics, but head restraints are typically cushioned and padded, making them useful to rest your head on. Edmunds likes to call them restraints, I call 'em headrests.
Whatever you call it, keep it lined up with the top of your head in case you have a collision.
I would try etrailer.com. They have a pet barrier that should work for the crv. I've bought a couple of hitches from them including one for my crv and I couldn't be happier. Also I have a card that they sent with my order with the code XBBJ7 it will save an additional 5% on any order that you could use. :shades:
Comments
You are used to the domestics' way of equipping vehicles. Not sure about versus Jeep but Honda vehicles are typically very cost competitive when comparably equipped to a domestic. Add this or that option to a Jeep and see how much you are really paying.
I agree that a Honda is probably more expensive than an equally equipped Jeep Liberty (I'm assuming you are comparing this model) after rebates. Keep in mind Hondas have some of the highest residual values in the market so your money is not wasted come trade-in time. Also, they have great lease specials.
As far as fog lights, tow package, etc. Honda never has these as standard features on any models. Even their top of the line EX-L models won't have fog lights.
On the flip side, Honda's lower end cars always come standard with ABS, side curtain air bags, and 5 speed automatics. Other competitors require option packages just to equal a base Honda.
Any possibility of a manual transmission option in the future?
They listed handling as one of it's strong points.
"Routine handling is responsive and fairly agile", "Good grip and balance in emergency maneuvers", "Commendable speed in avoidance maneuver".
Doesn't sound like bad maneuverability to me.
CRV has a larger turning radius than the Toyota even for the 17" wheels. I am not sure if the upgraded wheels on the CR-V 07 are the reason for the larger turning radius?
I absolutely agree about the interior.
I think the RAV is a very nice vehicle. The biggest factor for me was the difference in the rear hatch. The 07 CRV hatch opens upward with very small effort, I never liked the door type hatch on my 02 V and the current RAV is the same, with a 17 inch tire attached that partly impedes vision and adds weight when opening.
As you mentioned the 07 RAV limited has a few extras which is paid for by a $3000. difference in the MSRP sticker.
They should recheck the numbers; the Gen 2 has a 34 ft turning radius, the Gen 3 is almost 38 ft.
The change from '06 to '07 seems to be the result of larger wheels.
The issue of maneuverability, as presented in the original post, was directed at moving around in tight spaces. I suspect the new CR-V is not as good as the old one in that single regard.
Maneuverability in terms of handling at speed is another issue. On that score, the new vehicle is supposed to be even better than previous CR-Vs.
Please explain in further detail.
The previous two generations of the CR-V started with a manual transmission. As I said, changes have been made to existing transmission during a model run but I'd like an example of when a manual was added to a lineup where it didn't exist from the start.
The Gen II model was definitely available with a manual in the first year (2002).
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Have to say I was a bit (actually more than a bit) disappointed with the '07 redesign. Seems perfect for commuters with a "city" job, but they appear to have really taken the country out of it. The table is gone (I know, I can always throw another table in the back), and so is my "secret" Santa hatch that was also very handy for stowing valuables out of sight. The "cargo cover" seems flimsy, and not destined to last as long as the car if it gets changed around alot. But the worst thing is that the undercarriage seems quite alot lower to the ground--it might add stability and increase mileage on the highway, but I don't see this new model going where the older one went off the road.
I'm very reluctant to exchange my little burro for this fancy new hothouse flower. And the Element is WAY too Spartan to consider (have to admit to not looking that closely at it).
SO--was the demographic for Gen 1-2 so undesireable that they had to go for a whole different class of buyers? Will anyone who actually USED their Gen 1-2 CRV want the new one? I sure don't....Guess I'll be going for 200K...
You can probably find a used G2 model (2004 or 2005) fairly easily. Those are much closer to the original in terms of utility. Or, the new RAV4 is a decent option.
I'm not sure what you should replace the '97 CR-V with for use on your farm. Even the small pickups of yore have morphed into mid size or greater.
Assuming it still meets your needs, I'm sure your '97 will last for a long time. But it is always nice to get a new vehicle.
Jim
Whatever you call it, keep it lined up with the top of your head in case you have a collision.
Lots more here:
Pain in the Neck
Checklist: Protecting Yourself from Whiplash