2007 Honda CR-V

stevedebi

"Which minivans get better gas mileage than the CRV?"

I think he was referring to full sized SUVs, but as it happens, I traded an Odyssey for my 2003 CR-V.

The Ody only got 18.5-19 in town, but 27 MPG on the road (at 75-80 mph).

The CR-V got 20-22 in town, but again, only 25-27 on the road (again at 75-80 MPH). If I drove the CR-V hard in town, it got around 18 MPG.

So on the road, the Ody actually got better mileage at that speed.

c_hunter

But I don't think the CR-V has limited slip diffs, does it? If not, then only one front and one rear wheel would have traction at a given time, hence the "two" wheels.

bodble2

Yes, but a FWD with traction control would be down to only 1 wheel having traction under the same condition. So the RT-AWD would still be better.

harvey44

Not sure how many wheels are spinning on our 2006, but I know that it gets up our driveway in the mountains (snow and ice) when our Civic won't. So whatever it is, it's an improvement.

lahiri

I agree. First couple of tanks may not be spent well. CR-V starts delivering in the stated MPG range from 3rd tank or so. This is based on my experience with my 06 CR-V.

bodble2

Well, your Civic doesn't have traction control. So, I'm not surprised it has trouble getting up your driveway. You can try a this little trick with it next time: When it starts spinning both front wheels, try applying a little brake (to simulate traction control) to see if one wheel might gain some traction.

bcaptain78

What was the OTD price you paid? Also, what is the name of the dealership? I think you got a good deal.

thegraduate

You can also put the car in "2", which locks it into second gear. I've done this in my Accords when traction was in short supply; it makes the throttle a lot less sensitive.

harvey44

I'm not surprised either. It's the reason I paid an extra (whatever $$) to get AWD. To get up the driveway without any fuss.

There really isn't a reason to put the Civic to the test. That's why we've got a CRV. It's a second "home" so we only have one car there at any moment anyway.

isellhondas

Interesting comments...

For me, the way a car looks is way down the list of things I think are important. For others, it can be the reason they buy or don't buy.

I don't think the nose looks bad at all. I was expecting something horrible. Looks are so subjective.

The reason the underseat tray is smaller is the VSR unit resides there. The 2005 and 2006's dont even have a tray there. Since I've never used the one in our 2003, I wouldn't care.

The CRV's with NAVI won't have a tray at all.

isellhondas

Of course, I wanted to be impressed and I was. It is much quietier than my 2003 and just SOLID! I sure didn't see the "tunnel effect" out the rear window either.

Now I need to find a good excuse to get rid of the 2003 which will be a hard thing to do with only 24,000 miles on it!

Despite what the nitpickers are saying, I think it's going to be a home run hit!

bsparks

Costco is a major "warehouse price" store in the DC area. I think they are nationwide, too. Kind of like BJs or SAMs if you are familiar with them.

Anyway, Costco has an auto program in which they prenegotiate the price on all available models and options with their partner dealers. If our area is normal, they do not cover all manufacturers and only "partner" with about 1 of every four dealers that sell that model. The Costco advertisement talks about getting thousands of dollar saving over privately negotiated prices from the same dealer. This is the first time I tried to buy through it, so we will see.

Wasn't impressed with first offer of MSRP, but dealer did state they didn't have the official Costco price sheet yet.

bsparks

I don't know if "tunnel" is right word, but when I test drove 2007 EX the rear window seemed small in the mirror. Not sure why Honda did not make it bigger, but it is what it is. I have a Mustang Covertable, so this is a better view than that, but I expected a better view out the back.

It was particularly bad on the test drive, because the price sticker in the 2nd row window was blocking view over my shoulder. It made for a large blind spot, that hopeful will not be their once the sticker goes.

bodble2

Yeah, that may work too, although using the brakes may "induce" the effects of limited-slip-diff which would be more effective if one wheel has more traction.

jeffwork

I was the one who threw out the "tunnel vision" comment when looking in the rear view mirror. All I know is when you look out the back of the CR-V you have signficantly less visible road you can see then you do in any car I've been in. I found it very discomforting. Turning to look over you shoulder does not help because of the large blind spots due to the design of the sides.

I will still probably take one out for a test drive, see if I think differently while actually driving in traffic.

ralph9

What tires did Honda slap on this vehicle? Are they different for the LX and EX? Thanks

robr2

What tires did Honda slap on this vehicle? Are they different for the LX and EX? Thanks

The ones I saw were all EX's. Early build ones (VIN under 3,000) had Bridgestone Duelers. Later build ones had Continentals.

spind

Thank you for the information. I am actually a Costco member so your comment sparked my interest. Can you advise how to go about finding out additional information through Costco?

I received one quote from the dealership of my preference, but they actually quoted me at MSRP + the destination charge. Another dealership quoted me better, but I want to see what Costco has to offer.

drive62

All I know is when you look out the back of the CR-V you have signficantly less visible road you can see then you do in any car I've been in. I found it very discomforting.

Drive a DaimlerChrysler product and you'll think the new 'Vs rear window is huge. It started with the 300 and Magnum and it escalated with the Caliber and Compass. Teeny, tiny rear windows (and side ones too).

ginbak

I tired of all the SUV's turning into the offspring of station wagons and mini-vans. Some of us actually want to buy a small, gas friendly SUV. My last 2 vehicles were CR-v's and I will miss them. I need the utility of a cargo vehicle, the ground clearance of a light truck, all wheel drive for snow, and fuel efficiency for an 80 mile daily commute. I feel like I'm being left behind for soccer mom's and lite-luxury buyers. All the 2007 mid sizers look the same to me.

Please Honda - make us a sporty vehicle that we can afford to drive. I don't know what I'll do if I have to buy another make of vehicle. Thank heaven my 2005 should last me a while.

drive62

Here is someone who bought a new CR-V for $500 above invoice.

atmaja, "Article Comments: 2007 Honda CR-V EX-L First Drive" #11, 2 Oct 2006 9:03 am

One particular poster who has been very vocal in his dislike of the new model said that wouldn't happen until next year or later. He also said the new model would not meet Honda's sales forecast. So either they're already dealing because they know he is right or....

c_hunter

I'm not sure what you're missing in the new CR-V that you weren't already missing in the older versions. They have always been a "lite" version of a true SUV, based on the Civic platform. For 2007, Honda made the ride/handling better, which could only be good in my opinion. Aside from the look and the flip open rear glass, not much else is fundamentally different about the vehicle.

stevedebi

"Aside from the look and the flip open rear glass, not much else is fundamentally different about the vehicle."

Everything is fundamentally different. The Gen 2 design was centered on functionality - hence the boxy look and spare tire on the door.

The 2007 is attempting to move into CUV, as opposed to SUV, territory. They have compromised some of the SUV functionality. Sure, few people used the picnic table, but it was symbolic of the quirky and utilitarian nature of the Gen 1 and Gen 2 CR-V.

varmint

"One particular poster who has been very vocal in his dislike of the new model said that wouldn't happen until next year or later."

I think I know the guy, but he never wrote that. What he wrote about pricing had to do with the last generation and sales back in 2002. If anything, he probably thinks the new design will be selling below invoice within a year.

varmint

I'm with Craig on this one.

The new model is fundamentally the same vehicle underneath. On a purely utilitarian front, they're nearly the same. The only things making he old ones more truckish were the full-size spare and higher ground clearance.

lablover2

first off i didn't really care for the older crvs-i thought they rode worse than my 2000 jeep wrangler. that being said, i personally like the new styling on the 2007's-i didn't drive one yet because the dealer didn't have any 2wd's on the lot but hope to soon. if it rides as nice as i think it looks i may become a honda person. i also like the ridgeline so it may also be an option for me to get.

gy66

I was waiting the new CR-V come to the market. But I am kind of disappointed when I saw the real one. It is too woman.

The view from its side and back do not look good. I even think the current version looks better. Honda usually makes good design, but not always.

sgrigory

I'm shopping for a 2007 EX-L 4x4. For a silver exterior and black interior they will sell it for MSRP.

This is in the Seattle area.

What are you guys getting?

stever

Check the Honda CR-V: Prices Paid & Buying Experience discussion too.

sgrigory

I did, it has little on the subject of 2007's.

stever

Gotta post 'em to get 'em ... but it's awfully early in the new model cycle at the dealers.

explorerx4

i saw a new cr-v in black. front end was 'eastern block', bu maybe the rest of improvements will be able to overcome that.

dawnkicia

Got an offer for $23850 for EX- L. Is it a good deal???

Thanks...

guest

I got a quote for an EX-L. Invoice on it $23,690.

Anyone else seen an invoice?

seattlespeedwa

Hey sgrigory,

I live in Seattle and went to West Hills Honda in Bremerton to get a decent deal. I just took the ferry (1hr) and then had them pick me up on the other side. They had a good selection and were willing to go $500 under MSRP on any of their CR-V models. Ask for LT and mention my name if you go.

c_hunter

I don't think the boxy shape and tail-mounted spare of the gen 2 was any more functional than gen 3. Unless you happen to use the spare on a daily basis, or have some reason it needs to be outside the vehicle, it's in the wrong place -- there really is no benefit to a tail-mounted spare for a passenger vehicle. It could only get in the way of all the other uses of the cargo area. I think the liftgate, and spare hidden under the floor is much more efficient for most purposes.

I also haven't seen a benefit to the previous boxy look -- cargo capacity is actually a bit more in gen 3. By being smarter about the packaging, they also lowered the CG by over an inch, which is a big deal.

I do agree with those that think the gen 3 is a bit more girly looking than gen 2, but then again, the gen 2 was never a very butch vehicle either. If anything, one could argue that gen 2 was more like a bus...

sgrigory

hey thanks!

i'll do that. though i don't know your name!

dawnkicia

Invoice that was shown to me was $23,583.

How much is the offer to you?

ralph9

To make a swag (sophisticated wild [non-permissible content removed] guess) to derive the invoice price, take the base price from the Honda site before destination charge, multiply by .9243, and add the destination charge back to that figure. This swag will give you some idea how much the dealer is adding to the invoice figure for advertising, inventory cost etc. I derived the multiplier from last year's model CR-V.
You could also wait until Edmunds publishes the invoice figure, which could be a tad more accurate. Our host may know when the invoice figure will be posted. Take care. Ralph

ccacp

Go to www.bochhonda.com and look at their inventory. They have a column named dealer cost. That is the invoice price with destination. I do not work for that dealer but I believe that is important info.

ralph9

That's a great site. I don't believe that I've seen a dealer site that lists true dealer cost before. I would use their info to modify my multiplier factor to .90 based on their 4wd info for the LX EX and EX-L models.

c_hunter

They show different dealer costs for the same MSRP, so I wonder about the numbers. Unless there is some hidden variation in the invoice pricing we're unaware of...

fnamowicz

just picked up my new CR-V yesterday and comparing it to my 03 CR-V the new one rides better and it has better driver seat adjustments and the steering wheel also adjusts.
The storage shelf is useless just like the picnic table used to be and I miss the flip out rear window.
Haven't completely figured out the maintenance minder system but it seems like it's a pain to use.
There is no maintenance schedule in the owner's manual so you have to rely on this goofy display which shows letters and numbers 1-means rotate tires, 2-replace air filter and so on.

thegraduate

First one I've seen up close. Everything felt high-quality, much better than a comparable Escape/Equinox, and marginally better than the RAV4. Just my opinion though. I was not a fan of the gold interior (EX 2WD cloth, Gold inside and out). The MSRP was around $23k I think, the dealer had added mudguards and a stripe, totaling $450...So, no ADMU, but expensive unncessary options instead.

This was not at my normal dealer, however.

Overall, I think the CR-V is a great improvement, although not the revolution that a lot of people seem like they were expecting. It is a compact SUV in the $22k range, people, not a Lexus for $39k!

stevedebi

"The only things making he old ones more truckish were the full-size spare and higher ground clearance."

Well, we must agree to disagree. In addition to these I list:

- Overall styling
- Door mounted spare tire

banjolaya1

"During traction loss on the front axle the system routes torque to the rear axle so for a brief moment you have 4WD (AWD).
Doesn't mean much because only two wheels have traction. "

But if you have 2WD to begin with, during traction loss on the front axle 4WD would mean much because at that moment in 2WD - 0 wheels have traction!

stevedebi

"I don't think the boxy shape and tail-mounted spare of the gen 2 was any more functional than gen 3. Unless you happen to use the spare on a daily basis, or have some reason it needs to be outside the vehicle, it's in the wrong place -- there really is no benefit to a tail-mounted spare for a passenger vehicle."

You seem to forget the space under the floor, which I always used when packing for long trips. Not to mention it worked as an ice chest.

If the Gen 3 had the "boxy" styling, it would have increased the cargo capacity, since it is actually wider than the Gen 2. They sacrificed space for style. That is a philosophy contray to Gen 1 and Gen 2 CR-Vs.

RE: CG being lower in Gen 3. I'm not impressed. First of all, the Gen 2 was not unstable at all (mine was a 2003), and it had VSC anyway.

magoon

"Here is someone who bought a new CR-V for $500 above invoice. "

A 2WD EXL. I am sure that the dealer was happy to get rid of that one.

bsparks

Am I reading that right. $500 above invoice. That is thousands less than the MSRP plus must people are hearing.

c_hunter

You seem to forget the space under the floor, which I always used when packing for long trips. Not to mention it worked as an ice chest.

I was quoting EPA numbers for total cargo volume; if that underfloor volume was substantial enough, it would have been included in the raw numbers for the 06.

RE: CG being lower in Gen 3. I'm not impressed. First of all, the Gen 2 was not unstable at all (mine was a 2003), and it had VSC anyway.

I don't think the Gen 2 got VSA until 2005. But either way, you'd have to be nuts to think the Gen1/Gen2 handling was better. It may have been acceptable as far as SUVs go, but it was extremely poor in general. Improving that is one of the best features of the 07 in my opinion. I see no reason to say the 02-06 handling was preferable.