Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Honestly, if Toyota doesn't make the RAV4 significantly larger I think this is just a tremendous case of overkill (the car weighs less than 3000 pounds!). You'll pay a higher base price for the vehicle and then end up paying more at the pump each time you fill up.
Still, I agree with you from a marketing standpoint. If I were Honda I would offer a V6 option in the CRV. I'm sure plenty of people would buy one (even though I wouldn't).
"Why has the F Series, Explorer, Ranger and Focus keep popping up as top sellers all these years?"
Fleet sales.
"The new RAV4 will be larger to compete against the CRV/Escape/Liberty group. Guess what Honda fans... The new RAV4 is going to offer a 3.3 V6! LOL! Honda missed the boat again..."
Missed what boat? When the current RAV debuted in 01' it was available with a 2.2l 4-cyl. When the redesigned V came out in 02' it got a 2.4l 4-cyl to compete. Now the new RAV is set to debut and you think because Honda doesn't have a V6 immediately after the announcement that they missed the boat? That's quite the pathetic argument...
"still have to ask.. if the 4cyl is so powerful and great in the Accord why does Honda offer a V6???..."
The same could be asked of the Altima, Camry, Galant, Mazda 6, and every other midsize sedan in the Segment.
Yeah you would think the original poster being an "engineer" would know that you can't just drop a larger engine into a vehicle on a moment's notice. There is "engineering" involved.
I'm sure the next generation CR-V will offer a V6. It will be totally unecessary but Honda will give the people (at least some of them) what they want.
You know you constantly say things are changing and that Honda is no longer the most reliable (or whatever term you make up) and Ford is catching up or passing them. Obvously all based on your personal experience.
So how come when car magazines, rating services etc. show that Honda is more reliable and/or has better quality you don't listen? Latest example. Cosumer Reports reporting on 2004 vehicles. Honda was second after Subaru in terms of problems per 100 vehicles at 8. Ford was 11th with 15 problems per vehicle (slightly below the average of 16).
Seems like Honda still has Ford beat when it comes to quality of their vehicles. Too bad you can't accept it. So maybe the reason people "worship" the litte silver "H" IS because of the product. Honda has been proved to be a producer of reliable quality vehicles. And the consumer knows it.
Oh and BTW Consumer Reports has removed the Focus from it's recommended list based on it's recent poor rating in the IIHS testing.
"Yeah you would think the original poster being an "engineer" would know that you can't just drop a larger engine into a vehicle on a moment's notice. There is "engineering" involved."
Hehe... I just don't think Scape understands that just dropping a V6 in a CRV just to "keep up" would not only affect gas milage but potentially turn the V into a nose heavy pig...
Honda's methods are not slap together band aids to keep up. If a V6 will be offered, it will be on a completely new design.
I am expecting a hybrid powertrain rather than V6 though, and since Honda can build their own Hybrid powertrains instead of buying them from Toyota *cough* Escape Hybrid *cough* a V6 may not be necessary.
I don't think it is a bad move. Businesses should do whatever is smart thing to do. There is no need to invent to wheel again. In this case, buying the technolgy from Toyota is smart instead of spending millions just to built your base knowledge. However, I am expecting Ford to advance that technology...
But when someone comes in stating he's "Honda's worst nightmare" because the tides are changing and Honda's are overrated, Ford's are just as good and evn better, blah blah blah, well he's going to find an argument.
And in the case of the CRV and Escape, I believe the V excels in areas and the Escape excels in areas, but I believe the CRV is the better all around vehicle.
As for Ford and Toyota working together to offer hybrid technology, I think this is a smart move on both manufacturers parts. Why not work together to achieve a common goal (improved mpg) while also reducing costs? I think the automotive world, like everything else, is rapidly globalizing and you will see many more joint partnerships in the future.
I'm not so sure. Honda is actually serious about keeping their corporate MPG up, and they are very supportive of using smaller engines. I don't have any stats, but I think their corporate MPG is probably better than anyone except Subaru. Even their larger SUVs and Vans get 26 MPG or so on the road.
The Pilot gets 17/22 according to the EPA. According to real world experiences that I've read, admittedly not many, 19-20 is more the norm on the highway.
In comparison, I can get nearly 25 mpg in my Escape on the highway with just a few extra psi in all four tires. However, the Honda engine can somehow do about the same in the VUE. But then you'd have to drive a VUE every day.
Honda knows engines
No argument there. But I think the rest of the vehicles should have a little more attention paid to them too. I find the interiors to be VERY bland, the driving experience to be numb (on the one's I've actually driven), and the vehicles as a whole to be a bit, for lack of a better word, fragile, or less substantial than others. Then there's the styling. We all have our own opinions on that. I guess that's what the Acura line is for.
It seems your tune is changing a bit. You didn't disparage the Honda brand or dispute it's ranking in this survey. Are you acknowledging that Honda produces a reliable vehicle with good initial and long term quality?
But I also remember what they did with the 5G Accord in '94 or '95. They put in a V6 in response to the competition. And that was a time where (IMO) they rushed the engine into a vehicle that wasn't ready for it.
When they redesign the CR-V for MY '07 it could have a V6 option or not. But based on the competition I'm thinking yes. Doesn't mean they will sell a ton of them. People like me (and many others) will still feel the 4 banger is adequate (who knows how much hp that engine will have). Honda also may come out with a smaller SUV (or other AWD equipped vehicle) which will allow them to make the CR-V more upscale and therefore have a V6 option. All speculation on my part though.
In comparison, I can get nearly 25 mpg in my Escape on the highway with just a few extra psi in all four tires. However, the Honda engine can somehow do about the same in the VUE. But then you'd have to drive a VUE every day."
I have read posts where the MDX, which is similar to the Pilot and uses the same engine / drivetrain, gets over 27. Driven properly, of course.
I too have read them over on the Escape Hybrid forum. However, the guy who accomplished that, no one believed him so he provided pictures of the fuel econ readout no less, admitted that he concentrates on getting high mileage on every vehicle he drives. It's kind of like a game or a hobby to him. His other vehicle is a Toyota Prius IIRC and he does quite well with that too.
Normal drivers like the rest of us will never see 27 mpg in an MDX or Pilot. I certainly won't in the area I live due to the many steep hills. You automatically lose 1-2 mpg on average driving around here if you don't take it easy on the gas pedal.
So I really wouldn't consider his driving style as "proper". It's actually quite off the wall IMHO. But it is interesting to see the results. Even if I don't care about fuel economy in the least.
You know they did the same thing to the Honda Element, the sister to the CR-V, and about 5 or 6 other vehicles too right?
1-2 MPG is still 25 MPG on the road, similar to your much smaller Escape.
Steve, I think you're missing the point. Normal drivers won't see 25 either. With a rating of 17/22, average is probably about 19 mpg for the Pilot and MDX. Get that 27 number out of your head. That guy who achieved it went to the extreme to get it and he even used premium fuel IIRC. If I try hard enough and am given the right conditions I'm positive I could get 27+ mpg out of the Escape too. But I'd hate every minute of the process so I'm not going to do it.
I actually came to the near 25 mpg number by accident. I added the air to the tires to compensate for some vacation cargo. Turns out I over-compensated by a lot, probably about 3psi, and wound up getting great mileage. Since then I've added less air and my mileage hasn't been that high. More like 22 mpg on the highway during long trips.
An MDX driving on the highway would quite possibly reach 25+ mpg with the cruise control. Many of the driving "tricks" to increase mileage are less important at constant interstate speeds.
I had a similar engine to the Pilot (3.5L) in my Odyssey, and it achieved 27 MPG consistently on the road (75 MPH). I think the Pilot would lose a couple of MPG due to the higher wind resistance. But the transmission has been updated since I owned mine, and achieves better MPG. Because the all wheel drive system is only used when needed, it doesn't cause a penalty except for the extra weight.
That's what I said in my last post on this subject when I said I could do it in the Escape too. Conditions would have to be very favorable for either to occur though. Out of the box and in real world conditions none of them will do it on a regular basis.
All three of the Odysseys have 5 gears too. Look at the Ford Five Hundred. It has basically the same motor as the Escape (for now anyway) and is paired with a CVT. You're looking at 19/26 mpg with that combo in a vehicle that's about 500 lbs heavier than the Escape and has AWD. See, Ford's Duratec is no slouch either. They just haven't used it in the same way as Honda has used their motors. Why not? Ask Jacques or Bill.
It seems you are trying to prove to me that the MAXIMUM efficiency of Honda's 3.5L V6 is quite impressive. I have no doubt about that but the average driver, and the majority of drivers for that matter, are never going to see the max. If they do they should have bought something with a hybrid system or an I4.
People get 30 mpg (or better) on the highway in their CR-Vs.
I'm sure they do. However, I know I never would. My brother-in-law has an '01 CR-V SE and he's never seen 30+ mpg around here on any highway. In fact when we travel together we usually have to fill up at the same time because the highway range of his CR-V and our Escape is about dead even.
Different engine, it runs at a higher RPM, so even though it is smaller (2.0L vs 2.4L), I think the newer ones get better mileage.
The most I've ever gotten on the CR-V was about 430 miles range.
I didn't see any mention of reliability data gathered from consumers.
But I just read the overview; I did not go into the site, which requires a subscription.
I'm pretty sure we went over this on this thread a while back and found that the old 2.0L is indeed a bit more fuel efficient.
Varmint, do you remember this?
With cars essentially being a big computer and it being known that electronics tend to fail sooner rather than later, real problems tend to show up early. I'd rather buy a vehicle that has less initial problems than one that has more.
Long term reliability is hugely dependant on the maintenance done on the vehicle. A Honda that is ignored will have many long term problems.
Varmint, do you remember this?"
Depends on the transmission.
The 1996-2001 models got 22-25 mpg according to the EPA. That included both the 4AT and 5MT models. Based on posts from numerous owners, it seemed that real world driving resulted in 22-27 mpg for the 5MT, while the EPA's 4AT was about right.
With the 2002-2004 models, the 4AT got a bump up to 22-26 mpg (+1 on the highway cycle). The 5MT actually dropped to 21-25 mpg (-1 overall). Based on owners reports, the 5MT should have been about the same as the auto, but not any better.
In 2005, Honda gave the CR-V drive by wire and a 5AT transmission. The EPA rating for the automatic was upped another notch to 22-27 mpg. Haven't seen enough data to see if real world reports match or exceed those numbers.
All of the above figures are for the AWD models.
I think when some orgs report on initial quality, it is based only on consumer survey replies within the first, say, 90 days of ownership.
I think this CR one is more an evaluation by an experienced staff, with road-testing, etc.
I'm not saying it is the be-all and end-all, but it seems to me to be different than consumer survey results.
Hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it, but I think there is a difference. For what it's worth.
Regards,
ss4
CR does conduct car testing with their own staff, but it does not include any sort of reliability test.
J.D. Powers conducts two surveys.
One is an initial quality survey. This includes any defects. They might be mechanical or just complaints about the vehicle not performing as expected. For example, the H2 got bashed last year for not getting good gas mileage. That's not a problem with reliability, but the owner's felt it was a "problem".
The other is a more long term quality report, much like the one CR does.
Strategic Vision also has an index, which they call "Total Quality". This one considers reliability as well as how happy the owner is with the vehicle. This is based on a 90 day ownership period like the J.D. Powers initial quality report.
Me: engineer currently driving 1997 Mazda B2300 SE pickup 83K miles. Wife: law student with 1999 Honda Civic 4dr LX with 89K miles.
The Civic has needed only routine maintenance. Mazda has been solid, powertrain wise, but needed a new water pump at 75K and has had several wiring glitches.
We're thinking we'll unload both vehicles and consolidate to a single, new, reliable ride, as both her school and my work are within 3 miles of our house. No highway driving necessary.
Splitting the difference between a Civic and a compact truck is easy - get a small ute. Space for passengers, dog, home improvement stuff. Cheaper than a crew cab or full SUV, and easier to park in the city.
Our priorities are:
Cargo space/access
Reliability
safety
Fuel Economy
Comfort/convenience
- all at the best price we can get.
Our top five picks are:
CR-V
Escape/Tribute/Mariner
Forrester
Santa Fe
RAV-4
Given our preferences, the CR-V is the front runner. I was a little surprised at this, however, given the popularity of the Escape.
The Escape looks bigger than the EPA cargo volume numbers suggest. But the CR-V wins in that category.
Ford/Mazda seem decent with regard to reliability, but my research, and personal experience, suggests the edge goes to Honda.
The side/curtain airbags being standard on the CR-V is a plus. Looking at option packages and Edmund's TMV, it seems impossible to get the same level of protection on the Escape/Tribute/Mariner as the CR-V without paying noticably more, at least without incentives. The tip-up for the Escape family, and the engine fires on the CR-V, both give me a little pause, but seem to be tolerable risks, overall.
Fuel economy is comparable for the 4 cyl options we're considering. Too bad the Escape Hybrid isn't cheaper.
Comfort/convenience: Slight edge to CR-V. I prefer the CR-V's placement of the gear selector, parking brake, speedo/tach, audio controls, and driver armrest. Driver cup holders are awkward in both. Storage nooks seemed short in Escape, but they did provide more privacy. Escape had better power doorlock/window and climate control placement.
I give it to the CR-V, overall. I can see how my preference would change to the Escape if we needed a more powerful vehicle. As for the CR-V comparison to the Forrester, RAV4, and Santa Fe, I guess those are other forums.
By the way, I don't have a dog in this fight, as it seems a few folks posting here do. I feel no loyalty to any manufacturer: I am always looking for the best vehicle for my needs, and am happy to buy from anyone.
Unless you prefer the Escape; they drive and ride very differently. Be sure and check out the cargo space with the rear seats slid all the way forward (both Escape and CR-V have this feature).
As for rear space with the seats folded, it was hard to tell which is better. The CR-V is bigger per EPA cargo volume calculations, but it's hard to see the difference with the old Mk. I Eyeball Mod 0.
One way to decide it: take an Escape on a test drive to a Honda dealership and park it next to a CR-V. Has anyone on this board done this (or something like it)? Check them out side by side. Introduce the salesmen. I'm sure hilarity will ensue.
Not having driven the Escape V6, I can't speak intelligently about it. The Santa Fe V6 didn't have as much gitty-up as I had hoped. Not needing to tow anything on a regular basis, I'm thinking that the MPG hit isn't worth it.
>>> A study by J.D. Power and Associates measured owner satisfaction last year with new vehicles' design, content and performance. Honda finished 21st among automakers, down from 15th in 2003.
>>> Loyalty - measured by the percentage of Honda owners who stick with the brand when they buy new vehicles - fell to 55.2 percent last year. The loyalty rate was 57.1 percent in 2003, another Power study found.
>>> The brand ranked below the industry average last year and in 2003 for owner satisfaction with the new-vehicle purchase experience at its dealerships.
>>> The median age of Honda owners rose to 45 in 2004 from 43 a year earlier, according to the Strategic Vision auto consulting firm in Tustin, Calif.
Consumers' Most Wanted Vehicles for 2005
Steve, Host
I am going to get called a "Honda basher". Not so, I have owned one. It was a good car, but not the funnest car to drive.
Yep, all the magazines, car review programs, etc. are wrong and a person who owned one Honda Accord is right.
>>> A study by J.D. Power and Associates measured owner satisfaction last year with new vehicles' design, content and performance. Honda finished 21st among automakers, down from 15th in 2003.
>>> Loyalty - measured by the percentage of Honda owners who stick with the brand when they buy new vehicles - fell to 55.2 percent last year. The loyalty rate was 57.1 percent in 2003, another Power study found.
>>> The brand ranked below the industry average last year and in 2003 for owner satisfaction with the new-vehicle purchase experience at its dealerships.
>>> The median age of Honda owners rose to 45 in 2004 from 43 a year earlier, according to the Strategic Vision auto consulting firm in Tustin, Calif.
I felt the main difference is the Honda feels like a car, and the Mazda felt like a truck. If you wanted to pull something, you'd obviously pick the Mazda, but other than that, I can't picture picking the Ford/Mazda/Mercury. The quality of the interiors, both in terms of finish and versatility, wasn't even close in my opinion. The Honda had more room behind the back seat, with more room for my monster dog and her kennel, and was more comfortable in all of the seating positions. I literally drove them back to back, and the Mazda was SO disappointing.
I actually drove a Liberty next, then a Jeep Liberty CRD (diesel), and I felt both were of better quality than the Mazda, hands down, even though the Liberty has the least interior room of the three. I'd take the diesel with money as no option between the Libertys, and if I were truly buying a vehicle to pull things or go through things (which I'm not) I'd choose the Liberty in either form over the Mazda, so I came away thinking Honda by a mile, followed by the Liberty CRD and the Liberty. I haven't test driven the Korean compact SUVs yet, but if I can get a good deal on the Honda (I'm close) and decent value on my trade-in I'll be in a CR-V in short order. The toughest decision may be choosing between the SE and the EX.
Here's the whole article, by the way.
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102128
Thanks.
tidester, host