Does the Sienna or the MPV have a 7.5" ground clearance? What about optional 235 17" all season tires? Also I believe the Aztek is rated as an SUV? Plus that same AWD system was used in a comparo in Motor Trend with the Buick Rendevous and some others, they were very impressed with the Versatrack system. They said it handled the Dunes and mud pits better than the truck based SUV's. Huh I guess styling is very subjective but I find the Sienna pretty ugly. The MPV looks ok, but reliability hasn't been stellar.
Oh ya, are those better? Isn't that a whole other debate? Oh well I guess better is subjective too.
I would go for the Buick Rendezvous before I would consider the Aztek. The Aztek may develop a cult following, but due to its styling, it will never be widely accepted. My prediction is that GM is going to pull the plug on it sooner rather than later.
"GM executives, speaking at an industry luncheon marking the occasion of the recent New York International Auto Show, have announced that the Pontiac Aztek is no longer an ugly vehicle. Responding to loud criticism from a wide variety of industry sources and consumer groups, GM executives conceded that the Aztek did indeed have some 'pulchritudinous shortcomings' but that the market has come around to embracing the Aztek's 'uniqueness' and the '02 restyling has been a major success. So much so that GM has plans to increase their marketing activity for the vehicle that GM feels is 'right now the value leader in an important market and the car which best addresses the needs of the upscale and active, middle American car buyer'. When asked if the Aztek's reliance on radio advertising indicated Pontiac's desire to sell the car on its features, not its looks, GM executives were confidently predicting that the next round of Aztek magazine ads would go so far as to feature mostly un-retouched photos. 'We strongly believe that Americans want vehicles that make bold statements and have functional interiors' one GM executive was quoted as saying."
There you have it. Whether you like it or not it's here to stay!
that the Aztek's ugliness no longer shocks consumers. GM will be offering rebates and other marketing incentives to appeal to middle America bargain hunters in an effort to move stale inventory. And future marketing efforts will no longer try to deflect attention away from the Aztek's looks and hope that its functionality will sell a few more units.
So an old saying goes.A butt ugly car may have other redeeming virtues that makes it worthy over the long haul.Any person who judges you for what you drive is to be pitied.The car industry makes millions selling instant self image improvement. So if you like what you have ignore peoples comments.It is more important how you drive.
As hard as I have tried to like the Aztek's looks, it's still not good. The interior is fine and the functionality and quality are great. I wish GM had done more with the makeover, but they didn't and until they do it's going to be a slow seller. Rendezvous on the other hand is a nice vehicle. See way more RDVs now than Azteks. Heck I typically see more VUEs now than Azteks.
GM_litogation - I have numerous reasons for not liking the Aztek. You can read them in another thread if you're curious. Basically, it is a very functional SUV/minivan-like thingy. But it's not enough of the SUV part to meet my needs. If I'm going to give up the off-roading, I might as well get something for the tradeoff.
Although they did sell a couple hundred more Azteks last year than they did this year, you have to remember that sales have dropped off in general(for GM %1.7). Also last year they were in plentiful supply and they were being marketed. I said orders are up, and they are, they've sold 1000 more Azteks this month than they did last month. Not bad when you consider that GM is scaling back production and their only hoping for 2000 sales a month. So last month they beat their original estimate, really not bad considering there has been no marketing of the product. I haven't even seen one magazine ad with a picture of one, and I subscribe to several auto mags.
Well thank you all for showing me your open minds.
Varmint: On a personal note your bias to your CRV is noted, I was only suggesting an alternative. Although I never consider sales figures when I look for a vehicle, hence my Aurora, you are correct about the sales of the Aztek. Also, you are the 1st person I've ever met that considers a CRV to be a capable off roader. If you are really seriously looking for something like that I would suggest a Jeep Liberty. I also will go out on a limb and say that I doubt your CRV has any advantage over an AWD Aztek when offroading. By the way thanks for asking my questions... that's sarcasm BTW
I think I've answered your question(s), now how about you answering mine?
Well thank you all for your comments, I love how educated some of you are and how many 02' Azteks you've actually seen in person. I've seen a white one in person, and I liked it, I'm really sorry for you people that can't handle that.
Why don't you head over to the Suzuki XL7 posts & check out 5greyhounds comments. I know these got my attention. But please don't vacate this forum as your comments are always entertaining.
I disagree, varmit has a Honda but I don't think he is bias. In fact I think his comments have been very fair. I don't like the Aztek's looks much either and I think the vehicle's sales will continue to fall off.
GM_Litogation - I'll try to put in perspective for you. Yes, I do have a bias towards Honda, but no, they are not the only company that makes good cars. My CR-V is actually my first Honda.
No, the CR-V is not a "capable" off-roader. Anyone looking for a vehicle to use for the sport of off-roading should look elsewhere. However, when compared to other vehicles in it's class, it provides as much ability as one can get from a vehicle that still works as a commuter car.
Without getting too far into it these are the things that I consider: Weight, approach/departure angles, the breakover angle, suspensions travel, ground clearance, wheelbase, chassis regidity, whether or not the car has a full-size spare, gearing, the engine, and the AWD system. While the Aztek does have a decent AWD and engine, it lacks any significant advantages in the other areas.
CR picked the CR-V over the other small utes they tested, including the Vue. Positives and negatives for both but overall the CR-V did better in their test.
carguy62, I would take anything from CR with a LARGE grain of salt. I used to think that they were objective and sincere, but I now have serious doubts about that. Having read their recent auto-review magazine, I noticed numerous inconsistencies. I cannot quote any off the top of my head, but I notice that they seem to always give negative hints about cars from companies that they don't like. In their short blurb about the VUE, they mentioned a couple of bad features, bad rear seat height for example, and they hadn't even driven one yet. They said that the car was new for 2002 and that data was not yet available. But don't let that stop them from judging, or should I say pre-judging, a vehicle.
Just my .02, but I have lost complete faith in CR's ability to properly and objective review automobiles. I trust Edmunds the most and then use C&D, JD Power, etc to get side info.
Lots of inconsistencies, including putting the wrong picture on the cover. Lots of discussion around about the mag and your view is shared by many.
I tend to like their reviews (not just cars either) because I look at them as somewhat like the typical consumer. They bought the vehicle, it wasn't given to them by the manufacturer (I know others do the same). They don't get as technical as the car mags would, but I also like that.
Other than the sources you mentioned I really like Motorweek for their reviews.
My feeling is that many sources can be looked at, but the ultimate reviewer is the buyer.
I'm like others. I think that you have to be careful with Consumer Reports as they are very inconsistent. Many times you end up with more confusion than help from them in making a decision on a product.
That being said, I am still a subscriber and as I have said many times on this forum, it is useful to use many sources in making a decision on a car or any other product and CR is only one that I have used.
I am an online subscriber and the article I received on the best picks of 2002 has CR choosing the RAV-4 as the Best small SUV. I didn't see anything about the CRV???
RAV-4? Ya right. Noisy engine, cramped interior and poor test results in other magazines would make me doubt that. Perfect example that CR is not always the best source of car information.
You sorely lost that debate. Why don't you read through it, I know I have, and you really did lose it by quite a large margin. Your debate skills were shown quite evidently by your ability to theorize and when your opponent did the same thing you just slandered him for it. As far as I can tell he asked members to produce cold hard facts like 4 times. It didn't happen.....
Also I don't think you ever said what you thought about the Aztek??? I read through most of it again, and I can't see that anywhere. Also the rake angles, and such were relatively similar, I believe that corey guy went and measured them for you (if we are taking his measurement seriously). Oh well I have a subscription to CR also, they did rate the new CRV higher than the VUE.
It should be noted that they also rated the Ford Escape higher than the Mazda Tribute. Reasoning, who knows, they are exactly the same thing. I think they said the the stiff ride of the Mazda, but I for one would prefer the stiff ride if the handling is improved which is seems to be in the Tribute.
Consumer Reports is the only source of information for long term reliability information. I use them for that. There are other studies of "initial" quality, but most are limited to the first 90 days of ownership. I generally own my cars a little longer than that.
CR reviews have an extreme bias toward what they perveive to be the demands of the average consumer. While other mags have a bias towards peformance, CR has a strong bias toward mommy-mobiles. They basically think that small SUVs should be station wagons. It shows in how they rank them.
I like the review in Road & Track. They give a good idea of what they are looking for from the car and they quantify their numbers. They don't just say, "This car handles better". They say, "This car scores a 90 out of a possible 100 points". And you can see how important handling is because it's 40% of the total score. If I thought that braking was more important, I could actually adjust the percentages.
I haven't read the May issue, so I don't know what CR's opinions are on the VUE. I'll see if I can pick up a copy and report back.
GM_litogation - Sorry, I'm not taking the bait to open that discussion again. E-mail me if you want more information.
Read through you'll see it too. You lost, you may not be able to handle it but you did. I'm not trying to provide bait there's no need to open that discussion. It is my opinion that points were made, but the Aztek was better in a 2 to 1 margin over that of the CRV.
I'm not the person that started that discussion, and if I was I would feel that no rematch is needed. Nor am I one to take the necessary time to go through such a frivolous debate that's already been discussed. So no you will not receive any emails from me unless you want to debate GM vs Honda or something like that.
I'm glad you don't believe anything I say, George Washington's picture is on a one dollar bill. Please go out and tell everyone I'm an idiot, and that you don't believe it.
I'm not asking you to agree with my opinions, but at the same time I see no reason why you shouldn't believe them.
2 to 1
Aztek Value Options Standard Features Standard Safety Features Real towing ability Real payload ability Size Weight
Those are advantages to me.
CRV Mileage Performance Looks (barely) 5 Speed
Ok those are what I consider advantages of the CRV by my count that's 8 to 4 or for the math impaired 2 to 1.
Ok now I'm officially done with this, if you want to keep going with it I'm sure some Aztek owner will debate needlessly with you. The original vs topic is still open. This is the VUE vs CRV topic.
According to Edmunds an Aztec is midsize and a CRV is mini so they are different.If you are thinking midsize you are not concerned about economy as much as room and power.IF I was going cross country a larger SUV like Aztec/Rendezvous would be more comfortable at high speeds but for around town and short trips on the freeway a CRV suits me.To limit the comparison keep it under $20k and the closest competitor to CRV is the Santa Fe which is still trying to earn it's merit badge.
Apparently gm_litogation subsribes to the "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" school of non-thought. So much for stated objectivity. Love my CRV. HONDA RULES.
It's funny people got angry with me, but all my post were just answers to questions that were asked, or responses to posts that were made. In a debate you state your opinion or you provide factual information for one side or another.
If you make a charge, back it up, because I sure as hell will. You got a problem with that maybe you should call your mommy, otherwise get out of my face. This is a place for civilized debate, I can stay civilized, put me in a corner and I come out fighting.
Ok now I personally don't like CR, and thanks for the pic Varmint, but that's a 2001 right? Aren't we talking about the 2002? Anyway that's great you think it can off road, do you think it will do better or worse than the VUE?
With quite a bit more torque my votes on the V6 VUE. One other cool thing you don't have to worry about the VUE getting damaged nearly as badly with those nifty plastic panels.
gm_litogation : Let's get off the Aztek thing. It's a VUE/ CR-V forum.
timz58 : Back Mr. non objective? Honda doesn't rule anything. Get a grip.
This thread has really gone downhill in the last few days. I think varmit is the only person left here worth discussing with. Too bad because there were some good points being made earlier.
There was a couple in our neighbourhood that owned both a CR-V and a VUE. As soon as they got the VUE, though, they started fighting all the time. Darn near broke up over it. We could hear them screaming at each other some evenings: "Mine looks better!" "No mine does!" "Saturn is for weenies!" "Honda is overrated!" It was sad. Then they got some counselling and found a solution. They sold both vehicles and bought...... two Azteks.
Again CR is no expert but read their description of how the Vue's AWD system reacted and how it perfomed in their test. This is real world stuff. This isn't AWD systems compared on paper. This is what the average buyer may expect to occur. So spin it your way gm_litogation.
I don't have a may issue of CR, I only have the web subscription. I also haven't seen it on the store shelves. I can tell they've done a review from the website, but I have yet to read it because of there uncommonly slow web update.
I posted the pic to get us back on topic, regardless of whether or not it was an '02 or '01 (I think it may actually be a '98).
If you want to discuss off-road ability, I'm game. I have mixed feelings about the '02 and it's off-road ability. In some ways it is better than the old, and in others it got worse. I've never taken one off-road, so my points are theoretical. Same for the VUE. I can only post based on my experience with the CR-V (and other more capable vehicles). Okay? Here we go...
Both vehicles ride on passenger car tires, so they are both limited in that respect. Both have independent suspension with only moderate suspension travel. Neither has lockers or an LSD. Neither was designed to have it's belly dragged over rough gravel.
Vue - Nice big tires, except for that fifth one. It's going to be troublesome if you get off-road and can't get out because you have a donut spare. Decent ground clearance. Dunno about the approach/break angles, but it has an even longer wheelbase than the CR-V and probably a lousy breakover. AWD is a reactive system like the CR-V, which is not great for either. However, I've read at least two reports where the reviewer stated that the VUE's system is slower to react. Engine is a plus. It has more torque, but it also has to move more weight. Dunno if it's enough to make a significant difference. Plastic panels will help prevent dents. Dunno about scratches.
CR-V - The new vehicle has slightly lower approach/departure angles than the old (there's a 2% or 3% difference). However, they are still pretty respectable. Wheelbase is long (103"), but not as long as the VUE if I recall correctly. The CR-V is limited with it's small tires, but it also has less weight riding on them. Full-sized spare. Optional body cladding (not cheap) will help prevent dents and hides scratches better. Faster reacting AWD.
There's probably more, but I have to get back to work.
My personal opinion is that neither would do well on anything other than slightly muddy pasture. The 5 speed auto in the VUE gives me the impression that it might have a fairly low 1st gear ratio, but without the numbers who knows. The added towing capacity of the VUE also gives me the impression of a stronger chassis, but again who knows. I think the weight difference and wheelbase is easily offset by the increased tire size and the V6 engine.
As far as getting a flat while off-roading, well it happened to my friend and I once in his Ranger. I don't think it really matters which one you have, full size or a donut. We couldn't even jack the thing up all that happened was the jack would sink into the ground! LOL!! We ended up just driving it out on the flat, the mud didn't harm the rim and everything seemed fine when we got on the pavement. I gotta tell you though it really sucks changing a flat on a really muddy tire and car!
That's when a sheet of plywood comes in handy. Put it under the jack to prevent it from sinking. Just make sure it's good thick wood. Many beaches that allow SUVs require a plank, rug strips, a full-size spare, tow strap, and a shovel.
I know for a fact that the CR-V has a very low first gear. The 5 speed's just about qualifies as Lo 1 on many other trucks. I dunno about the VUE. With five gears, it would make sense that first is a low gear, but, with a V6, they may have felt it wasn't necessary. The extra gear could be between 2-3, or 3-4. I'll see if I can find some specs. You can find the ones for the old and new CR-Vs at Hondanews.com.
If it's that low, it means you'd have to pull it into 2nd before you have time to sneeze. Also, wouldn't the car stumble from 1st to 2nd if the ratios are that far apart?
Comments
Oh ya, are those better? Isn't that a whole other debate? Oh well I guess better is subjective too.
Aztek no longer ugly
"GM executives, speaking at an industry luncheon marking the occasion of the recent New York International Auto Show, have announced that the Pontiac Aztek is no longer an ugly vehicle. Responding to loud criticism from a wide variety of industry sources and consumer groups, GM executives conceded that the Aztek did indeed have some 'pulchritudinous shortcomings' but that the market has come around to embracing the Aztek's 'uniqueness' and the '02 restyling has been a major success. So much so that GM has plans to increase their marketing activity for the vehicle that GM feels is 'right now the value leader in an important market and the car which best addresses the needs of the upscale and active, middle American car buyer'. When asked if the Aztek's reliance on radio advertising indicated Pontiac's desire to sell the car on its features, not its looks, GM executives were confidently predicting that the next round of Aztek magazine ads would go so far as to feature mostly un-retouched photos. 'We strongly believe that Americans want vehicles that make bold statements and have functional interiors' one GM executive was quoted as saying."
There you have it. Whether you like it or not it's here to stay!
other redeeming virtues that makes it worthy over the long haul.Any person who judges you for what
you drive is to be pitied.The car industry makes
millions selling instant self image improvement.
So if you like what you have ignore peoples
comments.It is more important how you drive.
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsu.asp
GM_litogation - I have numerous reasons for not liking the Aztek. You can read them in another thread if you're curious. Basically, it is a very functional SUV/minivan-like thingy. But it's not enough of the SUV part to meet my needs. If I'm going to give up the off-roading, I might as well get something for the tradeoff.
Why don't we get back to the CR-V and VUE.
Well thank you all for showing me your open minds.
Varmint: On a personal note your bias to your CRV is noted, I was only suggesting an alternative. Although I never consider sales figures when I look for a vehicle, hence my Aurora, you are correct about the sales of the Aztek. Also, you are the 1st person I've ever met that considers a CRV to be a capable off roader. If you are really seriously looking for something like that I would suggest a Jeep Liberty. I also will go out on a limb and say that I doubt your CRV has any advantage over an AWD Aztek when offroading. By the way thanks for asking my questions... that's sarcasm BTW
I think I've answered your question(s), now how about you answering mine?
Well thank you all for your comments, I love how educated some of you are and how many 02' Azteks you've actually seen in person. I've seen a white one in person, and I liked it, I'm really sorry for you people that can't handle that.
No, the CR-V is not a "capable" off-roader. Anyone looking for a vehicle to use for the sport of off-roading should look elsewhere. However, when compared to other vehicles in it's class, it provides as much ability as one can get from a vehicle that still works as a commuter car.
Without getting too far into it these are the things that I consider: Weight, approach/departure angles, the breakover angle, suspensions travel, ground clearance, wheelbase, chassis regidity, whether or not the car has a full-size spare, gearing, the engine, and the AWD system. While the Aztek does have a decent AWD and engine, it lacks any significant advantages in the other areas.
CR-V and Vue supporters must have some comment.
Just my .02, but I have lost complete faith in CR's ability to properly and objective review automobiles. I trust Edmunds the most and then use C&D, JD Power, etc to get side info.
-LL
I tend to like their reviews (not just cars either) because I look at them as somewhat like the typical consumer. They bought the vehicle, it wasn't given to them by the manufacturer (I know others do the same). They don't get as technical as the car mags would, but I also like that.
Other than the sources you mentioned I really like Motorweek for their reviews.
My feeling is that many sources can be looked at, but the ultimate reviewer is the buyer.
CR is ok, but in general it's always best to read a few opinions.
That being said, I am still a subscriber and as I have said many times on this forum, it is useful to use many sources in making a decision on a car or any other product and CR is only one that I have used.
I am an online subscriber and the article I received on the best picks of 2002 has CR choosing the RAV-4 as the Best small SUV. I didn't see anything about the CRV???
In the May issue, they review several new small SUVs. The CR-V was the pick of the lot. That comparison did not include the RAV4 and several others.
In the annual mag, they list their top picks. They order them RAV4, Forester, Santa Fe, then CR-V in that rank from top to bottom.
You sorely lost that debate. Why don't you read through it, I know I have, and you really did lose it by quite a large margin. Your debate skills were shown quite evidently by your ability to theorize and when your opponent did the same thing you just slandered him for it. As far as I can tell he asked members to produce cold hard facts like 4 times. It didn't happen.....
Also I don't think you ever said what you thought about the Aztek??? I read through most of it again, and I can't see that anywhere. Also the rake angles, and such were relatively similar, I believe that corey guy went and measured them for you (if we are taking his measurement seriously). Oh well I have a subscription to CR also, they did rate the new CRV higher than the VUE.
It should be noted that they also rated the Ford Escape higher than the Mazda Tribute. Reasoning, who knows, they are exactly the same thing. I think they said the the stiff ride of the Mazda, but I for one would prefer the stiff ride if the handling is improved which is seems to be in the Tribute.
CR reviews have an extreme bias toward what they perveive to be the demands of the average consumer. While other mags have a bias towards peformance, CR has a strong bias toward mommy-mobiles. They basically think that small SUVs should be station wagons. It shows in how they rank them.
I like the review in Road & Track. They give a good idea of what they are looking for from the car and they quantify their numbers. They don't just say, "This car handles better". They say, "This car scores a 90 out of a possible 100 points". And you can see how important handling is because it's 40% of the total score. If I thought that braking was more important, I could actually adjust the percentages.
I haven't read the May issue, so I don't know what CR's opinions are on the VUE. I'll see if I can pick up a copy and report back.
GM_litogation - Sorry, I'm not taking the bait to open that discussion again. E-mail me if you want more information.
I'm not the person that started that discussion, and if I was I would feel that no rematch is needed. Nor am I one to take the necessary time to go through such a frivolous debate that's already been discussed. So no you will not receive any emails from me unless you want to debate GM vs Honda or something like that.
Is that your opinion? Isn't "better" a subjective term?
Again I think most points were covered in the original discussion, I need no other information. Thank you for the offer, but it is not necessary.
Thanks for telling me that the above statement was your opinion. Now I know not to believe anything you say.
I'm not asking you to agree with my opinions, but at the same time I see no reason why you shouldn't believe them.
2 to 1
Aztek
Value
Options
Standard Features
Standard Safety Features
Real towing ability
Real payload ability
Size
Weight
Those are advantages to me.
CRV
Mileage
Performance
Looks (barely)
5 Speed
Ok those are what I consider advantages of the CRV
by my count that's 8 to 4 or for the math impaired 2 to 1.
Ok now I'm officially done with this, if you want to keep going with it I'm sure some Aztek owner will debate needlessly with you. The original vs topic is still open. This is the VUE vs CRV topic.
cross country a larger SUV like Aztec/Rendezvous
would be more comfortable at high speeds but for
around town and short trips on the freeway a CRV
suits me.To limit the comparison keep it under
$20k and the closest competitor to CRV is the
Santa Fe which is still trying to earn it's merit
badge.
Promise?
Although the CRV maybe considered Mini, what is the VUE considered? Last time I checked we were comparing the VUE to the CRV right?
Well this is interesting
VUE Aztek
Height 66.5 Height 66.7
Width 71.5 Width 73.7
Length 181.3 Length 182.1
Anyway, that's hardly a difference in my mind. Why the double standard?
So lets move on.
p.s. If I corrected every mistake I see in these threads... oh nevermind.
If you make a charge, back it up, because I sure as hell will. You got a problem with that maybe you should call your mommy, otherwise get out of my face. This is a place for civilized debate, I can stay civilized, put me in a corner and I come out fighting.
Ok now I personally don't like CR, and thanks for the pic Varmint, but that's a 2001 right? Aren't we talking about the 2002? Anyway that's great you think it can off road, do you think it will do better or worse than the VUE?
With quite a bit more torque my votes on the V6 VUE. One other cool thing you don't have to worry about the VUE getting damaged nearly as badly with those nifty plastic panels.
I'm waiting, backing in a corner ready to explode....
Thanks.
tidester
Host
SUVs
One other thing Varmint, it seems the VUE comes with larger wheels and tires. Do you think this would help in a off road situation?
timz58 : Back Mr. non objective? Honda doesn't rule anything. Get a grip.
This thread has really gone downhill in the last few days. I think varmit is the only person left here worth discussing with. Too bad because there were some good points being made earlier.
"Mine looks better!"
"No mine does!"
"Saturn is for weenies!"
"Honda is overrated!"
It was sad. Then they got some counselling and found a solution.
They sold both vehicles and bought......
two Azteks.
Just make sure you don't hit anything as hard as a traffic cone or they will break. Check out the pic in May Consumer Reports. LOL.
If you want to discuss off-road ability, I'm game. I have mixed feelings about the '02 and it's off-road ability. In some ways it is better than the old, and in others it got worse. I've never taken one off-road, so my points are theoretical. Same for the VUE. I can only post based on my experience with the CR-V (and other more capable vehicles). Okay? Here we go...
Both vehicles ride on passenger car tires, so they are both limited in that respect. Both have independent suspension with only moderate suspension travel. Neither has lockers or an LSD. Neither was designed to have it's belly dragged over rough gravel.
Vue - Nice big tires, except for that fifth one. It's going to be troublesome if you get off-road and can't get out because you have a donut spare. Decent ground clearance. Dunno about the approach/break angles, but it has an even longer wheelbase than the CR-V and probably a lousy breakover. AWD is a reactive system like the CR-V, which is not great for either. However, I've read at least two reports where the reviewer stated that the VUE's system is slower to react. Engine is a plus. It has more torque, but it also has to move more weight. Dunno if it's enough to make a significant difference. Plastic panels will help prevent dents. Dunno about scratches.
CR-V - The new vehicle has slightly lower approach/departure angles than the old (there's a 2% or 3% difference). However, they are still pretty respectable. Wheelbase is long (103"), but not as long as the VUE if I recall correctly. The CR-V is limited with it's small tires, but it also has less weight riding on them. Full-sized spare. Optional body cladding (not cheap) will help prevent dents and hides scratches better. Faster reacting AWD.
There's probably more, but I have to get back to work.
As far as getting a flat while off-roading, well it happened to my friend and I once in his Ranger. I don't think it really matters which one you have, full size or a donut. We couldn't even jack the thing up all that happened was the jack would sink into the ground! LOL!! We ended up just driving it out on the flat, the mud didn't harm the rim and everything seemed fine when we got on the pavement. I gotta tell you though it really sucks changing a flat on a really muddy tire and car!
I know for a fact that the CR-V has a very low first gear. The 5 speed's just about qualifies as Lo 1 on many other trucks. I dunno about the VUE. With five gears, it would make sense that first is a low gear, but, with a V6, they may have felt it wasn't necessary. The extra gear could be between 2-3, or 3-4. I'll see if I can find some specs. You can find the ones for the old and new CR-Vs at Hondanews.com.