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 out the first morning after I bought the car. My battery was dead. :sick: I was so used to it in my old Jeep that it was just habitual that I left em on. Oh well, I learned a lesson that morning.
Hard to believe that there is no auto off function in a nice car like this. :confuse:
ugh.
dizzy now.
On my Accord I hear a sound (like a bell) to warn me that my lights are on. Not on the CRV?
This has been standard on the cr-v since 2003
See page 75 in the owner's manual.
First of all, I agree, auto off lights would be a good thing and I hope they decide to add them.
That said, the warning chime is VERY hard to miss@
Agreed!
This has been standard on the cr-v since 2003
See page 75 in the owner's manual.
Um, its actually been on every Honda since at least the early 1990s. The Accord's chime is a two-note "bing bong bing bong" while some of the lower end models (Civic, for one)had a constant tone (sounding like a heart monitor flatlining).
I'd guess you won't see any worthwhile changes until 2009-2010 timeframe.
Add parking lamps and you're golden, they turn on with less intensity so you can have some light while parked if you so choose, but it won't kill the battery.
My Subaru has both. Mercedes and most European cars have parking lamps, too.
-juice
When I looked at the CR-V back at the end of September, my main dislike was the plasticky dashboard and door panels. After driving the vehicle, I feel that's much less of an issue. However, it's definitely a notch below the material quality I would prefer. Most people probably won't care -- the dash looks fine otherwise.
Ride and handling are significantly improved over the previous generations in my opinion. So much so, that this is the first CR-V I would consider owning. Previous generations felt too tippy and wallowy to me.
I thought the vehicle could be a bit quieter on the highway, but it's not major problem.
Power was totally adequate. I could tell the engine was working when I was merging on the highway, but it sounds OK and is smooth. I never felt like the vehice was underpowered, but it's also not relaxed like many of the overpowered vehicles for sale these days. That trade often comes with a gas mileage penalty, so buyers will have to decide if they want adequate/efficient or powerful/thirsty. The CR-V is squarely in the former camp.
As I noticed a few weeks ago, the shelf in the cargo area is a great idea and it could easily be beefed up to carry more weight than the 20lb recommended limit (something I would consider if this became my ski vehicle). Actually, just putting loads on the ends (where the shelf rests) and not the middle would probably allow heavier overall loads.
Front and rear seat comfort was very good, but I would have liked more lumbar support in the front seats. The leather used on EX-L models is very comfortable, but thinner than what I am used to (think IKEA leather, for those of you who have shopped furniture there -- good enough but not the best). Even so, I felt the leather seats looked and felt much better than cloth in the EX, and generally I am a person who prefers cloth when available.
The tilt/telescope steering wheel is nice, but didn't tilt low enough for my preferences. In most vehicles, I put the tilt about halfway between lower and upper limits, often going down to the level where the wheel just frames the top of the instrument cluster from my vantage point. Couldn't do that here -- the tilt limits seemed to be biased for shorter/smaller people who would have the seat jacked up and sit close to the wheel.
I thought the folding operation of the back seats was somewhat inefficient. When you flip and tumble the seats, you only gain about 60% of the seat's fore-aft length in additional cargo space, because the tumbled seat eats up the other 40%. It also blocks what was the rear footwell, and that's often usable space on other vehicles. If you need an extra 10-12" of length for a tall item, then OK -- the CR-V's folding style will do it, but don't expect to get the whole seating area converted for cargo use. This is different than many wagons and SUVs, where the seat backs simply fold down to convert the entire seating area to additional cargo capacity. And in many cases, you still have open footwells to stash small coolers, shoes, ski boots, a laptop case, etc. This may seem like a small issue, but when it's done right you gain a lot of extra cargo space in length and height. When done like the CR-V, you gain marginal cargo space in length and would need to carry tall items to see a real benefit. The extra cubic feet are biased to the vertical rather than being usable in all directions.
As a skier, I have to ding the rear cargo space because the folded rear seats take up the space that would otherwise accomodate skis. As a kayaker and canoeist, and someone who totes lumber home frequently, I also have to ding the CR-V for the short span between rack crossbars -- a paltry 27 inches. This severely limits the use of the factory rack for long loads, and may affect aftermarket racks as well (many use the same mounting points).
Other than the these last issues with the cargo configuration and racks, I think the vehicle is a home run. This is really the first CR-V to come along that I can say that about. Honda has finally addressed my main gripe (handling) while retaining the features that made past CR-Vs great. If you don't share my concerns about hauling stuff in back and on top, then I would heartily recommend the CR-V. Gear hounds and rack heads may want to look elsewhere.
Craig
-juice
First of all because of all the standard safety features my 02 V didn't have, my insurance premium went DOWN despite the increase in collision coverage.
Biggie's for me. Rear hatch. Much larger tires. Stability control. Side curtain air bags. Better more stable handling. Standard security system. MUCH QUITER.
Little things. Integrated key and fob. Lighted steering wheel audio and cruise control. On all doors window and lock controls are lighted at night. Very ergonomic dash with more complete audio readout. Left foot rest. Roof radio antenna. Speed sensitive volume control.
I'll miss the rear door glass opening, but aside from that nothing. I won't miss the front inner wheel openings and the road salt in the back half of the engine bay.
As C Hunter summed up in his post Honda has hit a home run.
For the money, CR-V is by far the better value. The RDX handles better and the performance is significantly better. The interior is in another league. But it is also a good $7K more than the CR-V. However, I think bargains will be had on RDXs if they don't start selling better, and that will improve its value-factor with me. Probably never to the point of the CR-V, but at least to the point where it's reasonable. A $30-31K base RDX is more inline with my expectations.
How about they legislate that people think with their heads when driving, or in general.
I know it is a such a difficult concept that if the lights are shining that they are on. I am blonde and even I get it. Shining lights are on. When the lights are on they are powered off something. The power source will eventually deplete. I should probably turn them off before the power source is depleted since I have no use for them now. I should preserve that energy for later use.
I think the government should legislate that people use their heads instead of relying on the government to spoon feed them.
It used to be called Natural selection, the ones that don't make it don't procreate, which eliminates the negative trend/gene.
After the last week's snow storm in Buffalo, we kept hearing about these people who were dying from Carbon Monoxide poisoning from having their generators running inside the house or the attached garages with the doors closed, or from the stoves. All I could say, man, how did they make it to be old enough to procreate?
Murphy's law states: "Common Sense is constant, but population keeps growing"
Another Murphy's law states: "For every fool proof design, there is a fool ingineous enough to defeat it"
I live and drive in a area which has become famous (infamous, actually) for a tunnel. Even though that tunnel has become of the butt of many a joke for its poor engineering, it does, in fact, have lighting of its own.
And if a parking garage or other structure has poor lighting, I've got the sense to push a button or twist the appropriate stalk. This is typically done before the vehicle even begins to move.
The chime which sounds when a vehicle's light are left on should be enough to prevent the average driver from killing their battery. If it doesn't, I consider that the fault of driver. It doesn't make them stupid. I did it once myself. (I suppose that doesn't disprove the stupidity theory, but you get the idea.) A dead battery is not a tragedy. The chime more than covers a manufacturer's responsibility for reminding an owner that they might kill their battery.
A dead battery is not a tragedy -- but it may be, if it is your wife, or mother, or daughter at 1:00am, in a downtown packade. In any case, for anyone, it is at least a pain in the [non-permissible content removed].
And I wasn't thinking of pushing a button, or twisting a stalk to turn the lights on. I was thinking of forgetting to turn them off afterwards. And I already cited some examples of situations where you may not hear the chime.
An Auto-off feature, to me, falls into the same category as things like power mirrors, keyless entry, inside trunk release, power tailgates, etc. None of those are designed to prevent tragedies, or to discharge a manufacturer's "responsibilities". They just make life easier. In my book, nothing wrong with that.
One hesitates to contemplate a world where every convenience/safety concern generates a new law.
That said, I do think it would be a good thing to make this standard thing.
Lots. DRL runs on reduced-power high-beam. Not a substitute for headlights.
It amazes me what salespeople would brush off as trivial, and then turn around and try to hawk things like gold-plated emblems, scotchguarding, undercoating, rust protection, roadside assistance, and other overpriced crap of dubious value. :mad:
No foolin'.
But of course the point wasn't about whether an auto turnoff feature is convenient, etc. It is. If we want to mandate all safety features, a good splace to start would be a speed governor. :sick:
I do (on my Accord), to activate my taillamps.
Well, those people are idiots. Even on reduced power, the DRL would still blind on-coming vehicles in low-light situations.
Is auto-off light a need or a want? I would vote for latter. Nice to have, but certainly not a necessity. And if one can drive, one can learn to play with switches and stalks. Nanny features are only making drivers less "drivers".
Yes, arguably, or even probably. But so are a slew of features taken for granted in the modern automobile, including some really useless ones such as trip computers, keyless ignitions, and maintenance-minders. Speaking of maintenance-minder, is that not the ultimate nanny feature, or what! Christ, if someone needs some electronic gimmick like that to remind him to service the car, he shouldn't be allowed to own a car. :mad:
Amazing what is so important to a few people is trivial to others. Can't you understand that?
And CRV buyers certainly don't "need" a navagation system or te top of the line model. They can certainly buy the base model although few people do!
You think auto headlights are a must have, and you call a maintenance minder an "electronic gimmick".
Others think they are very important.
I deal with this every day!
What's trivial to you is important to others. Can you understand that?
"And CRV buyers certainly don't "need" a navagation system or te top of the line model. They can certainly buy the base model although few people do!"
I have no idea the point you're trying to make here.