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
2007 Honda CR-V: Just for Women?
And you thought racing from the stoplight was a guy thing? :confuse:
center mounted ISOFIX
That's nice, it's rare to find as well. Most force you to use either side. The 40/20/40 probably also helps keep it centered. Often the contour of the seat prevents center mounting.
roughly 6-8% shorter gearing in the first four gears
That sounds familiar (varmint again).
P225/65R17 means a very tall sidewall. A Plus One would fit easily with lower profile tires.
taillights appear to have been cribbed from a Volvo XC90
I said the same thing, but I still like it.
Trip computer std sounds great, but why delete the temp guage from the LX models? Can't they just save using economies of scale and put that on all models?
There are also 3 different steering wheels. LX, then EX has the buttons, then the EX-L is leather wrapped. That seems unnecessarily complex.
-juice
But I knew what you were trying to say in the first place.
In fact Honda was more specific in whom the CRV is targeted to:
But Honda officials were amazingly direct about who they'd like to buy the CR-V: women in their early 30s who either have a child under age 2 or about have a child. Later in the event, they conceded that based on previous-generation CR-V sales, about half of their customers are likely to be empty-nester women.
Not exactly the type of descrpition that would excite many men (myself included).
link title
Whatever you say. I just wish I had a hundred bucks for every male who brought a Del Sol - which, in my book, qualifies as the Queen of Sqeaks and Rattles
I don't see an oil filter in the picture. However, I'm not sure if the current engine had a problem with the exhaust manifold or if it was the catalytic converter.
BTW, to those who said the CR-V was larger than the RDX, you were correct.
Amen. And being "noticed" by folks you don't know isn't a need.
Back in '05 I was wavering between a CR-V and a compact pickup truck. A member of my gene pool who prefers manly American iron told me to check the next 10 CR-Vs I saw, and count how many were driven by members of the female persuasion. I did, and seven drivers were female. Then I applied the same test to compact pickups. Big difference -- only six of them were driven by women:-) Anyway, I bought the CR-V for practical reasons that I've previously bored you with, and I've never had a single twinge of buyer's remorse, being a utilitarian sort of fella.
The low powered v6 Grand Vitara and the Tucson/Sportage vs the average powered Rav4 I4 and the Cr-v. It pretty even hp wise as the I4 Cr-v get 166 hp and the Gv gets 186hp but weighs a bit more. They are all pretty promising trucks and that makes this comparo a good one! I'm guessing an Escape (and siblings Mariner and Cx-5 a.k.a future tribute) will fit also. Am I missing anything?
Or should this wait...
-Cj :confuse:
I'd bet you actually feel better now that you've been in touch with your feminine side! :P
-juice
That front grill is going to get some getting used to. Personally, not a fan. Rear looks to stay the same, except for the spare under the vehicle, about time!
I like the interior design, looks very similar to the previous gen Civic in my opinion. Leather is also a plus.
I have not seen any pricing info. Has anyone here seen it?
I certainly don't think the functionality of the CR-V has changed much. Yes, it's lost a little clearance, the picnic table, and such, but those are very minor in the grand scheme of things. Conversely, it has gained functionality and features which are more popular with the masses.
I agree that stating the target audience was a marketing mistake, but the actual vehicle simply hasn't changed much. The role hasn't changed, they just gave it a new name.
As far as the others are concerned (Santa Fe, RAV4, etc.), think we're going to have to see these vehicles side by side before we can come to some of the conclusions you've posted. If what I've read is true, this CR-V will become the new poster child for Consumer Reports.
>>>M
/rant warning....
Women are generally far more practical buyers. They want something roomy enough to meet their needs, reliable, and efficient. They know they're not going off road but they do like to sit high and have a good vantage point. They want to feel safe, but spend less than men on average so it has to be affordable. Finally, they want space for their purse, cell phone, etc.
Men aren't nearly as practical. If it doesn't fit inside we'll tie it on the roof, with or without a roof rack. Or the tow hitch. Reliability is less important because we think we can fix anything that breaks (we can't), and efficiency is less important because fuel-sippers are "for sissies", gimme a V6 or better yet, a guzzlin' V8. Off roading is critically important, even if we only back over the pansies in the spring time by accident. Once. Forget safety, think rhino bars! Oh, and 18 HID off road lights, for those time we go deep in to the woods (read: never). Cost is no object because this is our manlihood, after all. We need space for 17 cases of beer or a full keg plus ice. Even though we pretty much quit drinking after college.
Doesn't that about sum it up?
/end rant
-juice
My dealership has a few coming on this month and they have some people interested in them already so we'll see how they do. The first wave is coming direct from Japan but I guess they are going to be built here in the states, not England, like the current model. Pricing should be similar to the current model with a slight increase in price that happens every model year and of course leather is an option on the EX now, not a separate vehicle that was the SE. And finally you can get NAVIGATION!
Its true the picnic table is gone, but honestly how many people used it and how often? They are going to have a multi-level rear load area which in a way takes care of the loss of said table. I just think they should have added a V6 like toyota because thats what every customer is going to compare it to, regardless of how well it performs those people will be biased by the "idea" they have more power or performance with the toyota V6...actual or not.
hopefully that was helpful
P.S. Is the Navi still only available in January ? Will it be built in Ohio or Japan ?
Thanks in advance
Every holiday at my parents' house. Dad would pop it out of the CRV and it became the kids' table.
Unfortunately Honda was more specific in terms of whom the CRV market is targeted to: Women with toddlers.
I think the marketing folks are doing too much overtime in terms of their descriptions. IMO Honda is doing themselves a disservice by turning off many potential buyers who do not resemble their descriptions.
Never once in 5 years! It did serve as a good sturdy platform for the cargo area though.
You bet it does! A target market is what defines the features of an auto. Why should Honda make a pricier CRV with more torque/power? Will such enhanced power serve a toddler's needs? I dont think so.
And that is my point. Once you define a target market quite narrowly then you end up with an auto that satisfies a minority.
Why should Honda make the CRV more expensive with a V6 when it is sufficient and safe for a young mom.
Maybe Toyota's V6 RAV4 is targeted to a market beyond young moms?
It will perform close to the same as a 2006 and the 2006 was not lacking buyers.
I'm just wondering, in view of the increased competition, is it enough for Honda to produce something that performs "close to the same" as the outgoing model?
The 2006 had a noisy interior. They corrected that problem with the 2007.
Anyone is free to buy a V6 Rav4 if they want. If everyone runs out and buys V6 Rav4s, then Honda will come out with a V6 to copy Toyota.
Cars with sporty pretensions might need to stay close to the best competition with 0-60 times.
Who really cares if the next redesign of the Honda minivan shaves any time off 0-60 or 1/4 mile times than the current minivan?
Without abandoning its target market and intended price range, Honda is not going to satisfy the "more power, more options" crowd. That it hasn't tried isn't surprising.
I'm sorry, guys, this isn't about Honda retaining its target market. Honda is simply late to the party. Anyone familiar with Honda's history would know that this is their typical MO. For whatever reason, they have always been slow to react to their competitors' offerings. They were late in introducing a proper automatic transmission, a V6 in the Accord, a minivan, an SUV, a pickup, a true luxury sedan. That trend is continuing with their current reluctance to offer RWD, V8. There will be plenty of spin about target market, blah blah blah, but then, sooner or later, they relent and sheepishly introduce what they had previously said was not necessary,
I can't speak for a young mom, but my late-20s wife (no kids) did not think the previous CR-V had enough power when we test drove it in 2002, and she didn't like the tippy handling feel either. Everything else about the vehicle was great though. We later bought a Forester which felt zippier and handled much better (her Forester has since been replaced with a TSX), but that car had a much tighter interior and less overall room than the CR-V. So there were tradeoffs either way. Perhaps if we had kids, the roomier CR-V would have been more compelling, and the power/handling less of a factor. But the bottom line is that a roomy CR-V that also had similar power/handling to the Forester would have been the best solution for us. If Honda had offered such a vehicle, they would have been able to satisfy a wider range of buyers. With all the competitors out there, some with more power and equivalent gas mileage, there really is no reason for Honda not to broaden the CR-V's appeal. They have improved the handling, no how about improving the power? Unless their marketing strategy is to limit sales, I can't see why they would focus their target market so much.
Disclaimer: I need to reserve final judgement on the power until I test drive and get a feel for the overall vehicle. On paper there shouldn't be much difference from 06, but the gearing change could potentially have a qualitative effect.
It's true 100% of buyers will not choose the CR-V.
However, in replacing the forrester, I'm hoping that the handling and performance of the CRV are now improved.
Btw, have had 4 accords, one legend and 3 TL's so it took a lot not to buy the CRV.
the only problem i see, being that i work on a honda lot, is that these new cr-vs are going to end up being just like the newly redesigned civic and brand new fit, IMPOSSIBLE to get unless you put a deposit on one...at least for the first few months until production opens up. I mean you still can't walk onto a dealer's lot and find but maybe one or two civics just sitting around because they are just so hot right now and the fit...i haven't seen one on my lot in months, they come off the hauler get cleaned up and delivered within hours to the customers that placed orders months ago...kinda like the new Si...untouchable. if you live in a huge city in states like california you may not be experiencing that same problem, but in pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, WV, NY, and NJ...all the states that call me looking for cars and places i have to call trying to fill orders....we just don't have them!
anyway....hopefully that cleared up some things about the pricing and i'd say if you are someone that is interested in this vehicle i'd go see my local honda dealer and put your deposit on one of their incoming cr-vs because i don't think they're going to sit on the lots long after being dropped off.
Brilliant, if you think about it - they get people to pay more and probably increase profits that way. The CR-V engine is adequate anyway.
RAV4 V6 is cannibalizing the Highlander. I seriously doubt the RDX will hurt the Pilot.
So when we look at the whole lineup, it makes sense.
I think initial demand will be strong. It's so different from the current model that it will compell more people to go to their dealer. And I do think prices will be at MSRP or maybe $500 below for a month or so.
Then it will drop. Even the 07 RAV4 is already $200 over invoice, and I'm not talking about left over 06s.
-juice
I guess Honda could build a 30,000 CRV to please the people who have to have everything.
A V-6 engine is totally unnecessary in my opinion. This applies to the Accords as well. Honda builds a high revving powerful 4 cylinder that performs like a V-6!
Juice hit the nail on the head. If a person HAS to have allof that stuff, the Acura dealer will be happy to provide!
An AWD CR-V is only about 240lbs more than a FWD Accord (comparing 4-cyl EX models in both cases), so it's always been surprising that such a small weight difference can make the CR-V seem underpowered, but obviously there are lot of other factors that go into the qualitative feel. Personally, I would like to see about a 200HP I-4 motor in the CR-V with decent torque. They could still deliver decent MPG, based on similar engines in other products. For instance, the gem of an engine in the TSX.
the CR-V....or should i put SheR-V like everyone has been saying lately, will definately appeal to the housewife/mom/female in general category of buyer, but i think that you'll also see a similar mix as with the element. older buyers, those retired and beginning to feel the effects of arthritis and aging, do enjoy the fact that you don't step up into the vehicle...you kinda just slide into the driver's seat. big selling feature there as opposed to other sport-utes that sit higher. like i said...i'm 25, single, have no children, etc. this isn't my first choice when it comes to a new car....a civic Si or V6 6-Speed accord (coupe or sedan) would be more my style, but in the coming years as i get married and possibly have a kid or 2 i could see owning one of these...because as you get older who really cares about getting to 60 or 100mph in under 5 seconds...it would be more important to get to a destination during a snow storm with the AWD or haul cargo while also hauling the kids.
additionally...someone posted earlier about a RWD V8...i think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what is going to replace the S2000 in coming years...probably 2008...there have been rumors of a V10 type supercar or possibly a turbocharged V8...i'm sure that will change 100 more times before anything ever hits the pavement but at least they're talking about new things. I'd be looking for a prelude again in the near future with the talk of Acura dumping the RSX and replacing it with a TSX coupe...pretty solid ground for a prelude...the TSX coupe would be the right size, shape, and have the performance necessary to ressurect the sporty coupe of years past. i'd look for the element to be cut from the lineup within the next year or so as well with a replacement vehicle in line...i've heard the name LATITUDE several times now with it being a Matrix or Vibe type vehicle that maintains the utility of the element but with a more mainstream look and feel. only my opinions but they seem plausible if not probable....and they definately couldnt hurt! i think they should bring the European Civic three-door type-S and type-R over to the states and call it a CRX...as with the TSX coupe/prelude idea that shape, size, and performance are an adequate fit. the civic type s would make a good base CRX with the 1.8L and a 5-speed auto and manual...and the type-r would be a sweet CRX Si with the 2.0L 6-speed
The base engine is often called underpowered, even though they make more than 170hp depending upon the model. Then the turbos are the opposite - quicker than any one really needs.
0-60 is like night and day. ~9 seconds for base models, and then 6 seconds or less for the turbos.
A lot of us have been asking for something inbetween as well.
Edit: now that I think about, so does the RAV4. It is a 100hp jump from one engine to the other.
Perhaps we'll see a lower-boost version of the RD-X engine in the CR-V in a year or two (SE = Sport Enhanced?), but for now, they're banking on the freshness of both models to get enough sales for them.
-juice
they had a civic special edition a few years back and it added special wheels and a different audio system to the car plus a rear wing spoiler...so the SE can position itself between or above the other models...not that i think your idea isn't possible in fact thay probably WOULD call it an SE...but it would be a Special Edition of the EX-L...which i don't know that they'll do...its of course possible, just unlikely unless of course thay start toying with turbos in other vehicles such as the civic or s2000/s2000 replacement the more probable item as far as the CR-V would be a supercharged version...seems less intimidating to the buyer and more fuel efficient
I drive a 2003 CRV and I have never felt that it was the slightest bit underpowered.
I disagree. Acura will provide some of the stuff—but in different packaging—and with with a premium stcker price.
Also, I'm sure you would not be happy if all your V6 Accord sales commissions went to Acura dealers...
________________________
As to a CRV 3.0 V6: Just as with the Accord V6, there are those who would buy it if offered. I would certainly consider it over the RDX, mainly because I don't care for the RDX styling; and the V6 likely will run on regular gas, whereas the RDX turbo requires premium.
Bob
A lot of the "Honda SHOULD make a ...." cars would sell in such minimal qualities they wouldn't be worth producing!
Personally, I don't think we would sell many V-6 CRV's.
Been there, done that. No problems with a lack of power. You have to let the engine rev as it likes, rather than staying in the low RPM ranges. I think that many people are used to V6 torque (coming at lower RPMs), and don't realize how well the Honda I4 performs - but it does go to higher RPMs, as designed.
My 2003 did have a problem in the acceleration between 55 and 70. I generally manually downshifted before passing, or made sure I floored the accelerator. The CR-V just didn't want to downshift. Once it downshirfted, everything was fine and the passing was great.
I read in Forbes that Honda's prime focus will be to produce fuel efficient vehicles. Is it mere coincedence that Acura is the only luxury premium brand without a V8 sedan? Is it mere coincidence that Honda unlike all other major auto firms will not be manufacturing a truck or SUV with a V8? I dont think so.
Honda's obsessiveness over fuel efficiency makes a lot of business sense especially in these times of increased fuel scarcity. Unfortunately Honda's fuel miser pursuits will only be 50 percent successful as long as their marketing folks continue to convince us that their i4s are mainly for the other gender..
Another thing that annoys me about the new CRV is the lack of a manual tranny.
This does appear to be an irreversible industry trend. The new BMW X5 3.0 will no longer be offered with a stick.
Honda held out from offering a V6 for the Accord as well, early 90s you may recall. Here's the funny part: soon after they started offering the V6, the Accord actually lost the sales crown to the Toyota Camry.
Ironic, no?
-juice
I can't remember the last time I sold one and I sell LOTS of CRV's.
Toyota dropped the manual tranny, too.
-juice
This hurts Camry resale when they are dumped en masse at the auctions.