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
-juice
I think Honda just caved under pressure and started building V-6 Accors in 1995. We sell a fair amount of them but nothing compared to the 4 cylinders.
-juice
I thought the Ford Taurus was the #1 seller before the Toyota Camry?
Ford Taurus #1 best seller. I believe that occured during another millennium. What history books have you been reading
The veterans in these forums know I pretty much call it as I see it.
Why stop there? How about 5 people with enough camping gear to fill the cargo area plus a hitch-mounted cargo platform on the back. Make it a 6 hour drive into the mountains for a weekend of camping and rafting.
Oh, and make it a 1999 CR-V with the 2.0, not the 2.4L engine.
IIRC, I got 26 mpg on that trip.
I laugh when people tell me these vehicles are underpowered. They want the thing to jump off the line, but they aren't willing to to push the pedal down more than half way.
Well... what do you expect? Do you think they can just let buyers pick and choose between an I4, V6, turbo, or hybrid. Then, at the same time, pick whether they want a sunroof, leather, pwr seats, 3rd row, full-size spare, manual transmission, alloys, and every other piece of equipment.
There's absolutely no way to please everybody. Trying to do so would bankrupt them. So Acura picks the hardware that meets the needs of the bulk of their buyers and Honda does the same.
12 months later, the CR-V was selling faster than the Escape. Then the Escape went on a diet of heavy incentives, while the CR-V sold at MSRP for another year.
It seems after a long absence I got almost immediately reminded on why I may have shyed away from these forums!
Well I hope everyone can remind to him/herself that after all all posts are personal and do express perosnal opinions (varmint and other tech savvy ones are most likely excused byt the above statements when engaged in their tech and parafernali analyses).
So I would generally invite everyone to be mindful of that and to avoid personal crusades against those whom we are in dissent with!
On a point and case exemplification for the istance referring to Isellhondas, I would have made the following statement/request:
Why hondas doeas not affford greater flexibilty for options/addenda teh way that is affroded by the Toyota/Lexus brands.
I think that (IMHO) would definitely scratch under the glossy he was painting addressing the previous request about that issue.
But that is just me and MHO!
Kudos,
Steve
The sad irony is that they opted for a turbo 4 in the RDX, but the gas mileage sucks! IMO, they could have improved both performance and gas mileage, not to mention driveability, with a V6 in the RDX.
Doubt it. Honda has a new VTEC system in production for a Japanese vehicle (Stream?). It features a continuously variable VTEC design with a few other enhancements. This new VTEC provides an even broader torque curve, a reasonable boost in power, and improvements in both efficiency and emissions.
The word on the street is that Honda may bring this engine to the US with the 2008 Accord. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to be added to the CR-V line for the MMC. While it wouldn't be as dramatic a change as a V6 or turbo, it would please those who want a little more power without losing any ground in fuel economy or emissions. Win/win.
It's better than the mileage of the I6-powered X3, which has less horsepower and torque.
And while a lot of people that work for a dealer in one way or another here on Edmunds, isell comes across as far more unbiased than most.
If the launch had been a month ago, when gas prices hit their peak, people would be saying how incredibly genius it was to offer just one fuel efficient powertrain.
-juice
Sorry to belabor the point, I guess it's a personal taste. And I don't mean to dis the CR-V -- it would just be a better vehicle for me if it had more grunt.
Only the 3.5/V6 would come close to delivering the torque that RDX turbo-4 does. So, drivability isn't even an issue with RDX. Now, many have complained about turbo lag, but I suspect more of it is perceived due to DBW system not necessarily due to all turbo lag.
19/24 mpg isn't too bad, actually. Compared to RX350, which gets more power but less torque, and weighs about the same, gets similar gas mileage.
Personally, I wanted to see Acura use 3.2 or 3.5 V6 in RDX, but when it comes to taking final decision, I have to surrender my authority to its engineers.
Forester XT actually manages 21/26 mpg but it requires premium fuel, and that's off-putting to a lot of people. The RAV4 can run on regular.
I'm sure people are looking for an alternative to the RAV4, which still has a gate door that opens the wrong way, a poor view to the back, and a relatively cheap interior. Nothing wrong with that engine, however.
-juice
I know you probably find this hard to believe, but they simply do not sell very well at all, at least in my neck of the woods where there a lot of hills and lots of traffic.
And, as used cars they don't sell well either.
Like it or not, if it doesn't make financial sense for a company to produce something, they won't. They will annoy some by these decisions but it's just a business decision.
I don't necessarily think the RDX needed a V6, but they could have done better than the current engine choice. And the fact that the vehicle is so heavy doesn't help either. It's got a siginificant weight penalty over the CR-V and other vehicles in the size class.
More power does come with a penalty.
Yep, your bread and butter product will make you money, but offering choices brings in, and retains, your customers.
My fear is that the RDX will be one of those vehicles that get lousy real-world mpg, even though EPA numbers look decent. The Mini is another.
I welcome any new model Honda decides to build! I just don't happen to think a V-6 CRV would sell in any large numbers!
Same with the demise of the five speeds. When they announced that at a recent meeting nobody really cared since we sell so few.
I will say one thing...Honda does listen. If there is enough noise about people wanting a V-6, they will probably start producing them.
For some reason, they don't ask me for many suggestions but my vote would be no.
Even with the V6. IMO, while it may not be the most powerful V6 in its class, the Accord's V6 is the sweetest (for my taste buds anyway). Pilot was a late entry, and so was MDX. As was the first sincere attempt at an American minivan. Then there is Ridgeline, unique, but one of the few that hasn't seen a drastic drop in sales.
Who is to say Honda won't offer V6 in CR-V (or RDX) in the future? If they see a potential for growth, that might happen at some point. At this point, CR-V sales have continued to grow every year, and at 150K units/year, there is hardly anything to complain about. Also considering that the next model above it (Pilot) is selling at a brisk pace (should easily top 220K units/year this year).
Technically, Honda might sell 620-650K units of its three SUVs, including Element, CR-V and Pilot. Thats not too bad! And they don't seem to cannibalize sales from each other.
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
>>> M
Based on last two months of sales, Honda is still sticking with about 1% fleet sales for Accord, whereas 19% of Camrys went to fleet in July, and 15% in August.
The same logic actually applies to RAV4 and CR-V. I was surprised to see number of RAV4s at rental parking lots last week.
It seems Honda tends to be last to market sometimes but when they do make the move, they do a good job of it.
The Odyssey is probably the best example of this.
Courtesy of Hondanews.com (Media newsroom)
They must of got a small person with small hands for the video.
I don't see the front end being a factor either. Never really ever did, but the video comfirmed it for me.
A slick looking CUV that gets 30 mpg.
If I can convince myself that the mpg is good enough I may just buy this vehicle provided it performs like all the reviewers have said it performs.
A good looking, comfortable riding, quiet station wagon.
the manual cr-vs are fun to play around with though...quite different inside with the lack of the armrest and having a console on the floor where the auto has a flow thru design. they are just like the manual accords...snappy and quick but not appealing to the masses that probably drive these cars every day in traffic and what not.
Listen ? ! ? If Honda would have listened, they would have redesigned that UGLY front !
Has anyone got opinions on the CR-V relative to the 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander? Warren Brown, the reviewer for the Washington Post was enthusiastic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101002- .html) but he has also written good things about the 2007 CR-V. The Outlander has a V-6, is expected to be cheaper, and comes out in November. How's a guy to choose? Is this one worth waiting for?
More power does come with a penalty
I'll agree if you add the caveat "if you use it".
In the RAV4 threads roughly half the V6 mileage reports are above 20mpg, the rest below. Car mags are getting closer to 16-18mpg, but they have lead feet, and this V6 entices them to keep the pedal to the metal.
The daily driver folks that take it easy often beat 20mpg, though.
-juice
But a bigger issue I have is that it's based on the Caliber platform. Strange, I know. You have to wonder how well underpinnings designed for a $15k econohatch will do in a $25k CUV.
It'll also share parts with the Lancer (including EVO), and the Jeep Compass and Patriot. :confuse:
-juice
The "warts" on the lower cladding all but disappear in the video. You don't notice them. Of course the video is small, in person that may be different.
The front still looks like the hood isn't closed all the way. It sort of spoils an overall elegant look.
Questions - is that the CD changer he pulls out of the center console?
Also, looks like he pulls a PCMCIA card out from behind the NAV, what is that for? Downloading map updates?
-juice
PS PCMCIA stands for People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms.
Not to sound too pessimistic, but more than one industry writer is predicting that Mitsu may not be round too much longer...
-juice
Bob