I just bought a 2013 CR-V EX-L for the wife this past Friday...it is Basque Red Pearl. I drive a 2007 Fit Sport that is lowered and I must admit, I really like the CR-V. It is an impressive vehicle.
Since you're a car nut, I'm surprised you didn't recommend the Mazda CX-5. It's not that I no longer recommend Hondas to people, it's just that I want them to know that there are more interesting cars out there that are equally capable.
Misterfusion, I can understand what you're saying re: the CX-5, but if I had to recommend a car for my sister, I would put the practicality and reliability of the CR-V ahead of it. For most people, a record of reliability and ease of use trump whatever benefits you or I might consider "interesing".
I drive what I consider a relatively restrained, but modded RSX and I while I love it, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't willing to appreciate it's upside (handling, power) and look beyond its downside (ride, volume).
misterfusion: I'd agree that Hondas aren't the default/obvious recommendation they used to be. I'd probably sooner recommend an alternative to a Civic, Accord or Pilot. But in the compact CUV segment, it's hard to argue with the CR-V. I'd probably still pick the CX-5 but there's nothing wrong with recommending the CR-V for most buyers.
Guys, let's make it clear- the CX-5 is not a "sports car", ergo for most people it doesn't make a difference that it's slightly faster or handles better. We're talking about crossovers here... what's more important? Slaloms or utility and practicality? @banhugh: The newest Mazdas are probably reliable, but in the 2005-ish area none of them lasted in the midwest or Canada because they all rusted away.
@legacygt - I agree that the CR-V and Fit are probably Honda's most competitive vehicles, when compared to their respective classes. But I just don't think that reliability is a significant differentiator anymore, at least in mass-market vehicles. Cars
@misterfusion: If you knew one of the people who had their Ford Escape 1.6T recalled three times, including being told not to drive it, then you'd understand that reliability isn't guaranteed and that it will GREATLY upset some people. I don't expect cert
my sister bought a new CX-5 last week after a great MX-5 experience. I also had a great MX-5 ownership experience. we've both had Honda's in the past that we were happy with too, but I'd take a new Mazda over a new Honda just like my sister did.
@banhugh. While the CX-5 looks good looking and may have won the "initial reliable" car status, it means more to me to know that the CRV will still be running with 300,000 miles after 15 years. That's something you couldn't say about the Mazda.
On one hand, buying a reliable car brand new, keeping it for 8 years and over 100K miles, then replacing it is a sounds strategy. On the other hand, isn't driving the same grey-scale compact sedan kinda dull? People have no sense of whimsy/adventure.
Comments
I drive what I consider a relatively restrained, but modded RSX and I while I love it, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't willing to appreciate it's upside (handling, power) and look beyond its downside (ride, volume).
Also, since when do car colors have sequels?
Why did Consumer Reports name the CX-5 most reliable small SUV and still people assume the CRV is more reliable? Based on what?
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/autos/2012/10/29/consumer-reports-most-reliable-cars/7.html
@banhugh: The newest Mazdas are probably reliable, but in the 2005-ish area none of them lasted in the midwest or Canada because they all rusted away.