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
NAVI's account for 5% of production.
The interior looks a lot smaller, especially the headroom. I liked the roominess & size of the '06 - the '07 is more like a car.
First dealer in Brooklyn(had numerous cars in stock) asking 2000$ above stickers price -i' offered 26000$(595$.
bellow sticker) he said maybe 6-9 months from now.
Second dealer in Queens asked 1500$ above sticker price came down to 405$ above sticker(27000$)-my final offer 95$ below sticker 26500$ was rejected-despite i purchased my 06 CRV SE there.10 months ago.(both dealer agreed for 21000$ trade in for it-8650 miles on it black/black.
On friday i'm getting an 07 Volvo xc 70 (over 42000$ sticker price for 24 months lease 390/month only 1000$ down plus salestax.The VOLVO DEALER BUYS MY CRV for 21000$.
I will try the CRV diesel in 2009.
Do not pay over stickers price!!!!!!!!!!
This is the model with the biggest mark-up, and their best chance of selling it would be to get it out early where people can see it. They could move people up from the cheaper model if it were available. I would have bought a car today, instead I'll be shopping the competition.
Do you think maybe they're trying not to take business from that misbegotten Acura RDX?
The interior is okay, surely did not seem near as nice as the Acura version,there is more storage than the acura behind the back seat. The package shelf is a good idea but,is not as heavily constructed as it should have been, was afraid of that when I read of the 20lb limit. I noticed the hard surfaces as well. I was thinking back to my 84 civic with it's padded surfaces and and better appearing carpet and seat cloth,it looked so much more pleasing. today's honda plastics scratch and mar easily. My 1988 integra interior looks amazingly good after all these years and 280,000 miles. Todays civics do have good safe engineering but,the cheap looking interiors are depressing comparing past efforts from Honda. Sorry got off track.
The lift gate works very easily, a nice feature people will miss the opening hatch window however.
Still there on new Rav4...drove one of those 100 plus miles and it did not impress me either. Probably would not buy either of these. There needs to be a little more room and less road noise in these vehicles.
So you didn't like the '06 CR-V because of the rear tire "sticking out" among other things. Well it is an SUV and a rear mounted tire is not out of the realm of what could be expected on an SUV.
Now you like the '07 because "it handles like an Accord" and you "did not feel like you were driving a truck".
Seem obvious to me, you want the ride of a sedan. That is why you bought an Accord several months ago when you were shopping for an SUV. The new CR-V appeals to you because it no longer is a truck (if it ever really was) it is a CUV.
Nothing wrong with that but I don't think a vehicle (the '06) should be criticized because it is what it is (SUV). Some people want an SUV. You did not.
Put it another way -- if you could get an 07 CR-V, but with downgraded handling/stability, the swing tailgate, and the rear mounted spare tire, what would actually be good about that?
I was saying that I don't think it's fair to criticize an SUV because it's an SUV. From day one people have said they wanted painted bumpers on the CR-V. I personally don't feel painted bumpers are appropriate for an SUV so I don't think that criticism is fair. Obviously people can focus on the features that are important to them and if it's painted bumpers that is fine, but understand that every SUV might not have painted bumpers.
The new CR-V is not an SUV, it's a CUV. You may not understand, but some people might prefer the '07 as you describe it.
I hear this every day and it's funny sometimes.
No matter how "perfect" Honda could build a car, some people won't like certain things that others find important.
Good example. We haveowned our 2003 CRV for three years now. About a month ago, my wife and I were at the grocery store. When we got back to the car, I opened the rear glass instead of opening the door.
She had never done that and she didn't even know it opened!
For some other people, that flip open rear window is a must have! go figure...
Sufficient. What's the matter with you? You must not be an American. No true, blue American is ever satisfied with merely sufficient. We what excess, and plenty of it. Dependence on foreign oil, war, Middle East, who cares? Give me power, more power.
Sheesh! Americans grow more wimpy day by day. . . . . . .-g-"
No, a TRUE American knows how to get that 2.4L I4 to run like a V8...
Nope, I was serious. Speaking of the upcoming diesel engines (assuming Honda can do what they say), not the current stuff that is polluting and smelly.
The diesel does not get 200 hp. HP is actually quite difficult to extract from a diesel. 200 HP from the petrol K24 has been possible for years.
While Honda's 2.2L diesel is very smooth for a diesel, it still isn't on the same playing field as the petrol engines. Even the "stiff-pour" block of Honda's diesel has higher NVH properties than the K24.
I haven't sniffed a modern diesel, but, given that it pollutes more than Honda's petrol engines, I don't see how you can celebrate a lack of stink.
A good diesel is a good thing. But just because something is "new" does not make it better.
Very few people bother updating their systems but I think the update CD's are around 300.00.
It was the original poster who I felt was criticizing the '06 for being an SUV (rear mounted spare, trucklike handling). It's fine if someone doesn't like the vehicle, but it is what it is.
I think the new CR-V is fine for a buyer who wants a CUV. Essentially it's a sedan with some extra utility thrown in. Exactly what many people want. So I hope they put their money where their mouth is.
It is the cargo space and the utility that made me go with an SUV. A sedan just doesn't provide the same capacities.
And the command seating position, of course.
I like diesels, particularly in a truck or SUV. I think that the extra torque of the diesel will make up for whatever it is lacking in "not getting 200hp". When considering the total pollution, one must also consider the MPG. If a diesel got 40 and the gasser got 30 MPG, then the diesel is 33% more efficient, and might well produce less pollution.
Plus, I think the new technology is lower in greenhouse gasses. However, who knows what the gas engines will be down to in 2009...
The nose still looks awkward to me and I'm not a big fan of the current styling trend of continuing the body lines into the headlights that the CRV uses.
The plastics on the door panels are hard and feel cheap.
I liked how they integrated the conversation mirror into the sunglasses holder. I also liked the 40/20/40 split rear seat. The shelf is a great idea. The rubberized hatch release speaks of high quality instead of just lift handle. The 17" rims and tires are such a jump for a "little" SUV but look good.
What I really noticed is that the CRV is no longer an SUV. It's styling has morphed it into a true crossover without any pretentions of being an SUV. The previous CRV always seemed to be trying to be an SUV - not this one. IMHO, Honda saw the light that the SUV is dying and that the CRV shouldn't have to be an SUV. Not that it was anything other than a soft roader but now it's squarely targeted at the next big thing in the automotive market.
The vehicle seems smaller then the previous generation, most likely because the CR-V is not as boxy anymore.
I did like the rear storage shelf thing. Pretty neat.
Seats were comfortable (leather) center console and controls were nicely placed, and easy to use. Noticed a lot of hard plastic trim panels (doors, dash, center console)
As for style, I believe it is lacking. Not really impressed. The rear fascia looks like a Volvo XC-90, the side windows resemble the MB R-Class. I cannot get over the 2 tier grill in the front, and the gi-normous head lamps, wow, way to big. However, they are probably very functional.
As for the drive, it did not feel all that different from the previous generation CR-V, execpt the ride was a bit softer. Power felt the same. But, it has been a while since I have driven a previous gen CR-V.
This vehicle will most likely sell well with the big o'l "H" on the hood.
And the command seating position, of course.
Those are certainly valid reasons, but I should note I get that in my Outback wagon. About the only reason I would need to step up to an SUV is if I needed to tow more than the Outback's 2700-3000lb rating, or needed to carry more than 4-5 people. In the meantime, I feel like the Outback, being car-based (despite being classified as a truck), is better for the 90% of the driving we do on highways and streets where it's just a passenger vehicle. I really only use the other capabilities for the 10% of the time where we go on trips to ski, kayak, hike, etc... I have always felt SUVs were total overkill for that 90% passenger vehicle aspect. Now if I see a park ranger or lumberjack driving an SUV, then that might make sense!
Personally, I don't consider the Outback or the CR-V an SUV... which is a good thing in my book...
Having the new one look less the part... so much the better..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
If you think about it SUV stands for "Sport Utility Vehicle". There is nothing sporty about big, gas guzzling, non agile vehicles that most refer to as "SUV"'s.
The Outback is more or less exactly what a "Sport Utility Vehicle" IS, a sporty utility vehicle.. even though, you don't think of one that way.
I would say the CR-V has a "sportier" appeal to it now, then it did before, and still has utility.
As you can see, "SUV" is a pretty broad name encompassing many definitions.
Then you also have the luxury SUV's, Escalade, Navigator, MDX, that many people do not want to go anywhere off of pavement, or anything that will cause the vehicle condition to suffer, like "sporting" activities such as you mentioned above.
I checked out the CR-V at a local dealer yesterday. 7 had just come off the truck. The nose didn't look so bad from the front. From the side, not so great.
I just looked at some pictures of the 2007 Honda Stream. Definitely a cousin to the CR-V, but I like the look of it better. The rear quarter glass looks sportier and the front end looks more integrated with the design of the car. Of course, it is more of an Accord Wagon than the CR-V.
Having said that, I think the new CR-V will do just fine in the marketplace">link title.
the
1. Higher pressure on the common-rail direct-injection fuel delivery system using 2,000 bar pressure on the fuel-delivery lines. That could allow an amazing 170 bhp or higher output (compared to the 140 bhp now) but with a torque peak higher that of many 3.0 to 3.5-liter displacement V-6 engines!
2. Honda will use its new plasma-reactor catalytic converter, which will break down NOx gases to simple NO2 for easy removal by current-technology catalytic converters. This will make the diesel CR-V meet EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 and CARB 2007 regulations for diesel exhaust emissions.
24,050 plus $595 Destination charges. My dealer had about 6 or 7 of them, all EX or EX-L.
We took a test drive yesterday, and it was fine, but no wow factor. The noise level seems about the same.
I did not get the impression they were going to sell like hotcakes, which makes me really reluctant to pay the premium. We need a second car sooner rather than later, so I don't really have time to hold out for price reductions, but I'm thinking I should've got one of the 06's while there was still some stock to chose from.
The Outback is a decent "STATION WAGON". We drove one before purchasing our '03 CR-V. We prefer the more upright sitting position of the CR-V vs the more lay down stretch out position of driving the Outback. We prefer to sit up so we can see over sedans. We also like the height inside the CR-V for carrying bulky items.
We can call the CR-V a SUV or a CUV or a tall station wagon. What ever we call it, it seams to "fill the bill" for more people than the also rans!
Honda reliability is legendary.
Come resale or trade in time the CR-V is noted for holding it's value. There are 3 Honda dealers within a 20 minute drive of our house. There used to be a Subaru dealer, but they went out of business. TWICE ! Obviously more folks think the Hondas are a better deal.
There are other vehicles that are as good as the CR-V. Our '03 Pilot comes to mind. However, for its intended purpose the CR-V is what we chose for my wife's activities. For scooting around town and our lifestyle, I wouldn't trade the CR-V for anything I have driven.
Kip
There was some entertainment value in the form of a typoed 4WD EX-L trim level desciption section. I don't know if its still there or if its been fixed by now.
Click on "Learn more about trim levels". On the "Trim Descriptions" tab, instead of clicking on the separate "4WD EX-L" link, click on the "All" link and scroll down to the bottom.
Instead of just saying something like "Adds to 2WD EX-L faetures" and "Real Time 4-wheel-drive system", it has the following mostly-bogus list.
+ 5-speed manual transmission
+ Available 5-speed automatic transmission
+ AM/FM/XM Ready®†/6-disc in-dash CD changer/cassette audio system with 6 speakers
+ Steering wheel-mounted audio controls
+ Power moonroof with tilt feature
+ 16" alloy wheels, including spare
+ Exterior temperature indicator
+ Rear privacy glass
+ Body-colored dual power mirrors
The items are, in some cases, just redundant and, in other cases, just wrong; like the manual transmission; or downsizing the 17" wheels to 16" wheels.
Funny stuff. Ain't I a nit-picker!?.
For the record, the Subarus I have owned have actually held their value slightly better than our recent Hondas (except for my S2K, but that's a rare bird). Reliability has been excellent with both makes. I am not really biased one way or another when it comes to Honda or Subaru (well except to say that Subaru's AWD systems are a lot better in general). And I will gripe about both brands when I don't like or agree with something they have done. If that means comparing Subaru against Honda to make a point in the forums here, so be it. You can be assured my points will be from legitimate experience with both makes.
More than one Honda dealer has told me they lost customers when they stopped making Civic/Accord wagons (Accord in particular). I know a lot of people who consider used Accord wagons to be golden on the market.
I would totally support more wagons from Honda (TSX wagon has always been of interest to me), but I feel like wagons make too much sense to appeal to SUV-crazy shoppers. Still, some automotive writers have spoken of a gradual return to wagons, which is maybe what we're seeing now that SUVs are becoming more carlike. It's too bad the market had to ride the SUV rollercoaster just to re-discover the virtues of wagon/hatchback configurations; they have always made a lot more sense in my opinion, along with minivans. Europe never got onto the SUV rollercoaster, and they have some great sport wagons over there (including an Accord wagon that is kin to our US TSX sedan). That's what $6/gallon gas will do I guess!
So it the diesel coming to US for sure and in which vehicles. From what you state, it would be better suited for the vtm-4 technology. Did the current crv go to that technology?
All the torque on the current drive line may lead to too many problems no?
Honda Announces Pricing on 2007 CR-V
I remember selling a few 1996-1997 Accord wagons but they certainly weren't good sellers at all.
When you look at the back seats you see a big black seat adjustment bar sticking out under the seats. The seats look like they are an after thought, don't mesh into the interior but just plopped into the car. Carpet was in pieces with visible seems. Dash was okay but nothing special.
My biggest problem was the extremely small rear window. It was like you could only see half of what you normally would see looking out the back. Kind of a tunnel vision type effect. On either side of the small rear window is large blank spaces due to the corner (body) of the car itself. Frankly, I'd be afraid to drive around in it because the visibility is so poor.
Anyway, for it's worth. That's my opinion.
The Subie is perfect for that. I think the CRV is also perfect for it. Not sure but I think the CRV may have more room behind the back seat.
What the Subie's mileage? The CRV (06 MT) is getting about 28 hwy with nothing on the roof at 68 mph.
Mark