By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I found this info from HondaFan1 on VTEC.net forum.
http://www.autodeadline.com/detail?source=Honda&mid=HON2006082446338&mime=ASC
Honda News site:
http://hondanews.com/CatID2031
It is also dated 1 September, 2006. So either it is an advance copy obtained before Honda meant to release it, or someone is making it up, using some known data from the Element engine (for example) combined with other "possible" items.
Another possibility is that someone's flux capacitor malfunctioned and they actually got the release on 1 September 2006... :surprise:
Toyota starts at $22,335
Honda starts at $21,550
Toyota: *V6
4X2 - 22/29 mpg
4X4 - 21/28 mpg
Honda:
2WD - 23/30 mpg - Better Mileage
4WD - 22/28 mpg - Better Mileage
Rav4 is a gas guzzler with less horsepower
We should have a poll because it looks like everyone will vote for the Honda CR-V
Doesn't the V6 RAV4 have 269HP?
The V6 RAV4 smokes the Honda: BY A LOT
Here, you forgot to add one thing:
Toyota: *V6 (269HP) -A LOT More HP
2WD - 22/29 mpg
4WD - 21/28 mpg
Honda:*I4 (166HP)
2WD - 23/30 mpg - Better Mileage
4WD - 22/28 mpg - Better Mileage
To be fair, let's throw in the 4-cylinder RAV 4.
Toyota: I4 (166HP)
2WD - 24/30
4WD - 23/27
Um, it's neither, according to the fact that you keep using V6 economy.
103 horsepower extra will BLOW away the CRV.
Do you happen to have numbers to back up that claim?
Considering the RAV carries a similar weight to the CR-V, and a whopping 100+ horsepower advantage, of COURSE it will be faster than the CR-V if it has any decent transmission. I'd put money that there's a road test that clocks 0-60 in 7 seconds or less for an automatic RAV4 V6.
The turbocharged RD-X (touted as being higher-performance than the CR-V with a 240 hp turbo I-4) ran the 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
Do you really think the Acura is going to be slower than the 70+ horsepower-disadvantaged CR-V? The RD-X only outweighs the CURRENT old CR-V by around 400 pounds. The RAV4 weighs 3719 lbs, with 268 hp, giving it 13.8 lb per hp. The CR-V has over 21 lbs per hp to carry (assuming it only gains about 50 pounds over the current model, which is likely a very conservitive estimate of its weight gain).
The V6 RAV will smoke the I4-only CR-V.
Real world owners consistently have been reporting their V6 models getting closer to 16 mpg city. The highway mileage has been met by many owners though. If you drive mostly highway miles, you might not see much mpg difference between the V6 and 4 cylinder.
Based on what owners have posted, the city mileage ratings are easier to achieve on 4 cylinder models vs V6 models for an unknown reason.
RDX with 4 cylinders and poor mpg makes no sense as a purchase for anyone.
As long as you don't refer to it's acceleration/power figures, that's your opinion, and that's fine. Problem is, Toyota gets great mileage from it's V6 that makes 103 horsepower more than the CR-V, and it's Inline-4 model gets even better mileage.
How do you say the CR-V will blow the compeition away?
On paper yes. Norm seems to be in upper teens (based on reviews).
Back to CR-V. Honda hasn't needed V6 power to keep CR-V sales among the best in class. It still leads RAV4 in its final year in the market. I don't see that changing with next generation, and as more people move to more logical engine choices (that would be I-4 over V6).
HOT TIP OF THE DAY: If you've already decided that you're not interested in the 2007 CR-V, this is probably the wrong discussion for you.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Blad is Beautiful. The check's in the mail. 2+2=5.
This thread has gotten hilarious!
Consumer Reports tested the new RAV4 4 cylinder and the Honda CR-V in the same issue. The RAV4 was both quicker (under 10 sec. to 60, vs. a little over 10s for the CR-V) and more fuel efficient, in their real-world tests IIRC.
The new CR-V will be heavier. So it's doubtful it'll be faster and more fuel efficient that the lighter outgoing model.
-jucie
I hint badly don't I?
17" rims standard, nice!
Torque peaks at 4200rpm, vs. 3600 before. I hope it doesn't lose low-end torque, the old engine had a pretty flat curve.
Ground clearance is 7.3". More than the RD-X but less than the outgoing CR-V. It traded places with the older Forester, as Subaru is now up to 7.9-8.1".
Weight 3389 to 3415, so it ain't light. Still a bit nose heavy, too. Towing still 1500#.
72.9 cubes, varmint. That's pretty darn good.
15.3 gallon gas tank is small. They should have made that bigger for more range.
AWD gets 22/28mpg, vs. 23/28 for the RAV4 AWD. Close but Toyota has the edge there.
No big surprises, really.
-juice
Oh, I wasn't questioning that it was probably true, but when one makes a claim, it should be backed up by something other than words...
Why is a comparable Honda ALWAYS more attractive than the Toyota? The CR-V has always been more attractive than the RAV4 as has the Odyssey vs Sienna, Civic vs Corolla, and so on.
Looking at the interior picture for the US model, it doesn't seem to have a shifttronic style of auto tranny. Is that the case?
There could be some little things for our more rugged climate but I doubt it.
There will not be a manual transmission for the CR-V in N.A. As for the trims, the U.S. actually is following the Canadian model trims going to LX, EX and EX-L.
Bring us the EU version with all the latest techno, (parking sensors, diesel etc). I do not understand why NA gets the scraps, can anyone explain that. NAs like their techno, how about sending us some.
Anyway, as far as the CR-V goes, maybe Honda couldn't fix the front end in time and will give away free nose bras to those wanting to hide that ugly schnoz! I don't like it either, but it's a moot point, cause with no third row,the CR-V's off our shopping list anyway.
Not really a fair comparison, the base RAV4 that is cheaper than the CX-7, is it?
Check out Motor Trend's comparo of RD-X, RAV4, and CX-7. (which the Mazda and RAV4 were The CX-7 went 0-60 in 8.0 seconds, and got more than 3MPG WORSE and sucks Premium Gas.
The power from the turbo 4 banger is awsome
Considering this is the best engine offered, it is only adequate in comparison to the RAV4's 6.4 seconds, which is only about a half second slower than the highly touted MazdaSpeed3 that has a MANUAL transmission (which is routinely known for being faster than automatics, which are STANDARD in the RAV4 V6), as stated in the same magazine issue.
The RAV will haul @$$, and 6 passengers, and that's the jist of it. The Mazda is a handler, but doesn't "blow the RAV4 off the street. In fact, Motor Trend felt the same way, apparently. The Mazda CX-7 came in last in the comparison.
BTW, I surely hope the turbo-4 in the Acura RD-X is a LOT smoother than the CX-7's... It sounded pretty rough when I heard one in the parking deck the other day.
Remember, manual transmission equipped vehicles do run quicker times (9s may be for MT).
Remember, manual transmission equipped vehicles do run quicker times (9s may be for MT). "
I'll go on the record saying that the new CRV will be slower than the old. The initial Edmunds road test of a 2002 manual quoted 0-60 in 8.7 (I think) and I have seen MT quote the auto around 9.
There is no way that this CRV comes in around 3400lbs as compared to 3900+ for the RDX (per Acura literature). Other than the turbo engine, a few options, and sound deadening material, the two are no different so where do you save 500lbs? An extra 10hp with a higher peak will not compensate.
man, u are so backwards.
Hahahaha; you crack me up. I'm a Honda guy, through and through, but you are hysterical. Are you honestly telling me you think a 166 horsepower CR-V can "smoke" a 244 horsepower Mazda CX-7 and a 269 horsepower RAV4?
Maybe I could sell you my 1996 Accord, with 130 horsepower. It'll blow away a Mustang GT. I'll sell it for, say, $17,900.
Curb weight is (almost) official for the new CR-V. It ranges from 3389 lb (LX/2WD) to 3534 lb (EX-L/4WD). This slightly up from current generation that ranges from 3318 lb (LX/2WD) to 3494 lb (SE/4WD). The power rating is up by 10 HP which would more than compensate for minor gain in weight.
..U
....G
......L
........Y
Honda has some cool designs, but this is not one of them. What are they thinking?
I am a little suprised, and disappointed, at the 166hp. That's a real disappointing output considering Honda's track record in making class-leading hp/l. I think the mitsu/chrysler 2.4L in the new Jeep is putting out 172hp.
No doubt the Honda is probably the better engine, but I expected something more special, and I'm left considering the Rav4 V6 instead, or even the Tucson.
Their specs versus the prediction are: length 178in/180.7in, width 71.6in/73.6in, height 66.1in/64.7in, weight 3532lb/3720lb, wheel base 103.1in/104.3in, ground clearance 7.3in/5.1in, cargo capacity 72cu ft/61cu ft, luggage capacity 35.7 cu ft/27.8cu ft, fuel tank capacity 15.3 gal/18 gal.
I am hoping that these figures are correct, especially the width since I would be housing the vehicle in a single car garage space, the luggage capacity since I would want to carry more than one suitcase with a couple of passengers, and the height since I would occasionally need to drive through more than one inch of the powdery white stuff.
The Wieck figures indicate less of a mirroring of the Acura specs. They also show a side sill step-in height lower by 1.3in so that ingress and egress feels more sedan-like. At my age anything that makes body movements less stressful is welcome. We shall see in a few days. Ralph
Gauge pod looks good, in fact the whole interior looks good.
As for performance, I don't think the CR-V will even try to aim at the CX-7, or the RAV4 V6 or the Forester XT for that matter. It'll be about par with the 4 cylinder RAV4 and hit the segment's sweet spot, which does not emphasize acceleration.
Remember, Consumer Reports (last month maybe?) had the new RAV4 4 cylinder quicker than the outgoing CR-V, and the new one is heavier. Don't make any bets for Pinks, you'll probably lose.
That's not the point of the CR-V, though.
-juice