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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Robertsmx - Slightly bored? Yes. But I would have to say that a 13mm difference qualifies as significantly stroked. Sorry, I'm being nit-picky today.
You must be slightly bored as well.
ooh I made a funny.
Sounds like the engine might be just fine as it is.
I just noticed that the Element discussion is among the 10 hottest discussions here at Edmunds (based on number of posts I'm sure)
With the level of interest in the Element that seems to be going on, perhaps they are going to sell a lot more of them than the naysayers think...
Perhaps it's time to give Honda a deposit on one.
Does anyone know of anyone who has done so at a dealership?
I bet if it's successful Honda does 1 or 2 variations on this platform.
-juice
I noticed that Hondanews.com has published the specs for the Element. Cargo space is only 77 cu.ft. I was hoping for something in the 80 range. A/C, keyless entry, and alloys are listed as "available" for the DX. Side airbags are available on the EX, but do not come standard (bummer). Towing is listed as 1,500+, but I don't see where they explain the "+".
Love this pic.
Is the Element bore and stroke the same as CR-V? That is, does it produce the 160 hp in the same way as CR-V; same hp/torque curve?
The Pilot & MDX have the same critical dimesnionsion but one is set-up for regular fuel as standard, the other for premium, total power numbers are the same, but the curves are different. This suggests that Honda is heavivly into the same thinking that once was the domain of aftermarket chip makers, namely eeking out max power with fuel & timing changes alone.
9.7 : 1 Element
vs
9.6 : 1 CR-V
The Element's peak torque output is lower at 161 lb-ft and peaks higher at 4,500 rpms. That compares with the CR-V's 162 lb-ft at 3,600 rpms. I expect that the the Element's 2.4 is the same as the Accords since they are built right next to each other. It's also noteworthy that the Element's gearing is even shorter (numerically higher) than the current CR-V! The final drive is the same.
I haven't found a torque/hp curve for either the Element or the Accord, but I can post one for the CR-V if you want.
I hear you! Honda are magicians with their engines! Can't wait for the road test results.
varmint:
When the time is right how bout a post of both to compare?
Tnx
That will help the heavier element get up and go.
Hmm, why would they go for the 161 lbs/ft of torque at 4,500 rpm instead of 162 @ 3,600?
I would think you want peak torque as low as possible in an SUV.
Unless it's a flat plateau of 160 lbs/ft from like 2000 all the way on up to 4,500.
I suppose that would work.
Rats! No manual trans with 4wd until May 3rd..
Curses!
Perhaps if the performance does not suffer too much I could live with an auto...been looking forward to a stick again though...have had an auto for years.
Also, have you noticed that on the hondanews.com specs the cargo volume is slightly greater for the 4wd?
??
I would have thought the reverse, i.e. that intrusion of 4wd components into the cabin space might shave off a few cu/ft but how can the 4wd have more room?
Typo perhaps? maybe it's the other way around.
"Hmm, why would they go for the 161 lbs/ft of torque at 4,500 rpm instead of 162 @ 3,600? I would think you want peak torque as low as possible in an SUV. Unless it's a flat plateau of 160 lbs/ft from like 2000 all the way on up to 4,500." - Aquaswimmer
I'm guessing that Element uses the Accord's engine because they're handy. It may cost too much to send the CR-V's engine to all three plants.
Also, just because the peak is higher, does not mean that the power at lower rpms is lower. It is possible that the Element's 2.4 reaches 150 lb-ft earlier than the CR-V, but takes longer to get to its peak. That was true of the 99-01 CR-V over the earlier models. Another difference you may note is the Element's peak hp comes at a lower rpm than the CR-V.
I'm wondering if the cargo difference has to do with the different seats.
Lastly, the Element is a van, not an SUV (despite the plastic cladding). We might as well call it what it is.
This is for the version in Accord (and perhaps Element). Notice that 95% of torque is available from just under 2500 rpm to about 5500 rpm, all that would really matter.
Is Element going to be geared even shorter than CRV? I doubt that, unless it is getting 5-speed auto.
"Composite Body Panels
X X Metallic-Look Metallic-Look "
What's up with this? EXs get painted composite panels?
I like the floor mounted brake lever & dash mounted 5spd........:--)
May availability...:--(
Hehe, a van indeed. Sport Utility Van could still be SUV though..
Hmm, differing cargo volumes based on different seats...
The only different choices for rear seats would be vinyl versus the waterproof seat surface right?
But you could get 4wd with vinyl as a DX or waterproof as an EX and likewise 2wd with either seat type.
Ahh...I'll bet it has to do with the sunroof which does only come with the 4wd. Possibly the different roof gives a little more space..
Although I would think a sunroof reduces headroom not increases it.
Hmm, once again..perhaps a typo...maybe its the 2wd that actually has a bit more room.
From "Interior info":
"The spare tire is located underneath the floor behind the rear seats. The square cover for the spare tire (41.6 x 29.4 x 26 inches, L x W x H) can be used as a table when removed by adding Honda Accessory table legs."
In combination with photo:
http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_042052
Not the 48" wide cargo width I was hoping for...oh well.
varmint: 77 vs 80, close enough, no? Seems darn roomy to me.
Besides, it's a compact and I doubt the payload will be more than 1000 lbs, so people won't be tempted to overload the thing.
-juice
The gearing is shorter. Take a look at the specifications on Hondanews.com. First gear is the same, but the others are shorter. They can probably get away with it because of the larger tires.
Juice - Agreed. 77 is enough. The pictures had me hoping that there was between 80-90 cu.ft.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Just pulled out my Consumer Guide, and the only one listed with more is the Sante Fe, at 78, so it's about the most you can get in a compact.
-juice
Here's an example: The Pilot has 90 cu.ft of cargo space. The Ody has 146. That's a big difference even though both are based on the same basic platform. The CR-V has 72. The Element has 77. Once again, both are based on the same platform, but that isn't a huge difference.
Don't get me wrong, 77 cu.ft. is enough for the vehicle's size. It's just that, because Honda is so good at packaging, I was expecting more.
Regarding the moonroof: Most of the time, a moonroof will detract from headroom (or cargo space). That is because it slides into the head liner and lowers the interior roof line. The Element's moonroof does not retract. It may be propped up or removed.
juice,
I wonder how Highlander's 2.4L, 2WD, has a 1500lb payload. do you think the Toyota has a better engine?
ttl
the dx isn't looking so bad after all with power options (except cruise:{ and mirrors)
I wonder how bad ac will set me back
is real time really worth getting unless bad weather is a concern
I am actually looking for a sport utility van lol
I'd still rather have the spare mounted on the front out of the way and sliding doors but if price is right and interior isn't too cramped in the drivers seat it's a maby
has anyone noticed the old element site looks to be removed?
DX 2WD (5-spd) 16000
DX 2WD (auto) 16800
DX 4WD (5-spd) 17200
DX 4WD (auto) 17600
EX 2WD w/o side air bags (5-spd) 18750
EX 2WD w/side air bags (5-spd) 19000
EX 2WD w/o side air bags (auto) 19550
EX 2WD w/side air bags (auto) 19800
EX 4WD w/o side air bags (5-spd) 19950
EX 4WD w/side air bags (5-spd) 20200
EX 4WD w/o side air bags (auto) 20750
EX 4WD w/side air bags (auto) 21000
Let me know what you think? I must have too much time on my hands.
Don't worry you past or future CRV owners the Element customers are not getting a deal. The KIDS are getting ripped off.
If you have to wait till May to get the 5pd MT why doesn't Honda just put the Accord V6 in as well. It just over in the other building. Go get some. And TCC suggested it needs it and can take it and use it.
Honda looking for the first 50,000 suckers until the V6 comes. And it will come.
With that fuel mileage and weight, an Xterra new or used looks pretty good. And no cladding.
"I don't care how short the gears are." - Ropedart
That's what the fans of the V6 Escape said. It hasn't stopped the 5 speed CR-V from beating to 60mph.
now to figure out if dx 4wd options that I like would save me over the ex enough to warrant it,or if I should just go all out with the ex even though I don't care for the stereo
is it really going to have the accord engine? if so why not throw in the 5 speed auto? (if it is and its torque curve screws up the vehicle i may wait until its revised in a year or so)
power windows,locks and privacy glass on a dx but no radio and non power mirrors what's up with that ?
I kinda like the radio option I'd rather put in something cheap and functional than have one thats really more powerful than I would prefer.(I wonder what exec though up that brilliant idea? try and sell a mini suv to gen y with a pre installed stereo? I guess it will appeal to the crowd that lowers and modifies automatic civics for "performance" lol)
but no power mirrors I feel cheated
at least it now sounds like both front seats will be water proof instead of the lone driver
the sunroof does sound like a possibility on the interior size since it will pop out and be non power (thats what eats up interior space on other models)
moonkat I saw some pics of the elements tire cover opened waaaaay back before i even found this board they had put an amp back there on top of the spare , but I cannot remember the site
You stole my words.
BTW, I always find it interesting to see Honda's choice of 'scaling' the dyno. They go for wide spacing on the y-axis and close on the x.
It appears that CRV and Element engines are making the same torque at 3000 rpm, but the Elemental version appears to be stronger between 2000-3000 rpm, and the runabout version appears to be stronger between 3000-4000 rpm.
Element has a sort of "twin peak" torque curve, reminds me of the original Integra. The graphs aren't quite scaled the same way, but the Element appears to have a more favorable torque curve.
ttl: it's universal, most 2WD versions of any particular truck have more payload than 4WD, usually because they are lighter. 4 cylinders also usually have more payload than V6s, perhaps for the same reason. It doesn't mean the engine will be happy with the load, just that the chassis can withstand it.
ropedart: let's make a gentleman's bet, then? I say under 10s to 60 with a 5 speed, still in the 10s with an auto.
chris: a dealer installed cruise in my Subaru, so it can be done. Subaru added cruise in '99 as standard, so there's hope that Honda adds things to the Element as well.
-juice
According to the carconnection's review, it's slightly over a foot shorter than the CR-V.
-juice
For example, for a while, reading some magazine specs, it seemed as if the CR-V was really longer than the Escape. After reading a few other magazines, it became apparent (and more comprehensible) that the length of the CR-V was being measured by including the rear spare, which made the CR-V appear to be longer, but had almost the same interior volume as the competing Escape.
I think it's the same here...does the Element really look like it's 1 foot shorter than the CR-V? Not to me.
Also, CR does a cool box test, the biggest box you can get in and out, i.e. useful shape. I bet the Element wins that contest.
-juice
Regarding the spare: It has to be full-diameter. RT4WD requires it. However, it could still be a narrow donut. That is how it's done with the JDM Fullmark CR-V (which has the inside spare).
Cargo measures: I prefer the C&D beer case test. Not because I get to empty the cases... I just think it's a more useful measure of space.
Sounds like lower versions of VW Passat (full size spare) versus the W8 (donut spare).
The W8 really has a donut? That's funny because VW ads made fun of that feature.
-juice
yeah I've seen some matrixes with dealer installed cruise its not mounted on the steering wheel though. (I can live with it)
my concern with it is, will it affect the factory warranty?
plus those steel rims why didn't honda use the rims spotted in that "spy" pic loaded on the truck those didn't look that bad
is anyone familiar with actual performance on rt4wd
I've heard it takes significant time to kick in and I was wondering if it was more gimmick than actually being useful
That was a Model X, not an Element.
I'm familiar with the performance of the RT4WD system. It takes about 1/4 turn of a front wheel before the rear axle will kick in. How useful it is depends on how you plan to use it.
You wouldn't want to tackle anything insanely hairy as it is could trigger its overheat valves and you'd need to let it cool down, but it is quite capable and remarkably simple.
I'm curious, where have you heard it is more gimmick than useful?
I dunno 'bout Honda, but with Subaru any accessory you install within the first year and at your dealer is covered under warranty. But I wouldn't be concerned because I doubt an OE Honda cruise unit would be likely to fail.
The part-time 4WD uses a RBC and should be fine for most needs, but I still wish they had a system that sent power to the rear axle at all times. In fact I'd prefer it if it were primarily RWD and engaged the front wheels when needed.
-juice