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
1. Turning radius - now 37, used to be 34.
2. Big C Pillar on 2007, normal size on 2006.
3. Unable to open the glass separately from the door.
4. Non standard spare tire.
5. Styling has gone from utilitarian to some kind of "trendy"-sort-of-thing. The new CR-V has similar interior cargo space, but would have increased the cargo space if they used a more square design similar in form to the Gen 2. I think Honda may have been worried about competition to the Pilot, which has 87 Cu Ft with the seats down. A boxy design on the new wheelbase might gone over 80 Cu Ft, eating into Pilot sales (though the two are really different vehicles).
I'm not in the market for a car at this time. If I was in the market, I would test drive the CR-V. But having owned the Gen2, I'm not sure I would buy the Gen 3. Unless it came with a 2.2 CDI :surprise: , then I would probably overlook the other items... :shades:
P.S. Thanks for opening up the generic Forums again; now the users can decide which method of posting they prefer.
tidester, host
The CR-V will be a winner, in part because of styling, but more because it's now much quieter, with a much improved interior. And taking the spare off the rear door was probably the most requested design change (most buyers don't care about a temp spare--it's been at least 10 years since I needed to use one).
Last, I'm trying to figure out why the turning radius is so important to some people. Maybe if I had a daily tight u-turn, then it might matter a lot. Otherwise, in normal driving, most people will never know the difference. After all, this is nothing more than a tall station wagon suitable for foul weather driving. Given that target, I think the CR-V hit the bullseye.
tidester, host
I suspect if the new CR-V is a winner, it will be mostly because of the "H" on the hood, and the reputation it carries.
"I'm trying to figure out why the turning radius is so important to some people. Maybe if I had a daily tight u-turn, then it might matter a lot.'
A tight turning radius is helpful in all sorts of parking maneuvres -- parking lot stalls, getting in and out of my garage, as well as parallel parking, believe it or not.
As the owner of a new CR-V, let me assure you that the CR-V parks (yes, parallel too) and maneuvers in city traffic, etc., with the same ease as most other cars on the road.
If ones looks at other popular vehicles--Camry, Accord, Escape--their turning diamenters are very close or the same as the CR-V. Drivers switching from one car to another are unlikely to notice a difference. Only car buffs looking for a nit to pick will likely find the minor difference of any note.
While I think the 2006 CRV is ugly - especially the hood, I'm more fond of it all the time. I has so much more usable room than our 1998 CRV did, it takes less time to pack. With frequent winter trips to the mountains, that's important to us. And with a baby now we got so much STUFF.
Once I figured out (with the help of these forums) that I need to turn of the VSA to get up our steep icy driveway in the mountains, I now feel that the 2006 is better in every way than the 1998. (Except for styling as I said.)
The 2007 DOES to me seem to be trying to replicate the Civic's success. While the Civic has many appealing features - drivetrain, mpg - I think the reason it is selling like hotcakes is that it is so darn cute.
So that swoopy look has been grafted on to the 07 CRV. But it's not really right there. I may not be the average CRV buyer, but to me the 06 is really great. It has enough power (as compared to the 98) and a smooth engine, I can PASS with it. Great visibilty. Great cargo capacity. A great back seat (wife sits in the back now with baby). Excellent gas mileage (28+ highway). When we went to our cabin in the fall, we fit a rocking chair and a rug in it with all the baby stuff and didn't have to use the roof box.
Oh yea - the roof box. I think I can go all winter without using it (skis can go inside) and that saves me a TON of gas. Its the difference between 24 and 28 mpg.
M
I am not sure what kind of behavior you are expecting, but it sounds 100% normal to me.
The same temperature scale will be superimposed on the AC cooling effect, if you have AC on.
Yes, I've noticed that warm means hot in the CR-V, and hot comes fast. In cold weather that's good, isn't it? At the first sign of heat, I quickly turn down the dial, way down. It's OK now that I've learned its behavior.
The AC will get a test this coming weekend in, hopefully, warm and sunny California.
I make a U-Turn in front of my house at least two times per day. However, the shorter turn radius also translates to quicker emergency moves, and generally more nimble handling.
No. Ever wondered why those F1 cars have turning radius about three times as much as most sedans? Besides width of the wheels, gear ratio can play a role in determining turn radius. Apparently, Honda gave this new CR-V greater high speed stability (steering) and compromised a little on turning radius. It is possible to have both, but then Honda would have to use VGS (variable gear system) on the steering wheel.
For similar reasons, Accord V6 models have nearly 40 ft turning radius as opposed to Accord I-4 (and Accord Hybrid which too is a V6, but uses tamer gearing ratio) that do it in about the same radius as CR-V.
What does the OWNER's MANUAL say about that?
Every Honda I had, as a matter of fact, every car I had pulls ambient air through at the coldest setting on the dial. Any other setting mixes in hot air.
This last message makes me wonder, who is Honda attracting with the newly redesigned CR-V? We all know that Gen 1 CR-V mainly attracted previous Honda owners who wanted a small SUV, so they were already familiar with all the quirks of Honda.
Then Gen 2 attracted more of the main stream buyers, but who were not originally die hard domestic buyers, and may have owned a Japanese or European vehicle prior to CR-V.
Gen 3, from the last post, seems to have attracted former "Domestic only" buyers, who may have never been exposed to the ergonomics of a Japanese vehicle. And may not even be aware of all the quirks of a Honda that made me realize that Honda was the company that had me in mind when they designed their 1985 Honda Civic (my first Honda).
Just wondering.
An F1 car does not have to execute emergency maneuvers - in fact, to turn rapidly would be a disaster at those speeds.
I think the turning radius has to do with the move to 17 inch tires in 2007.
I'd have to say, Bingo!
BTW, you can't disassociate emergency maneuvers with F1 cars, they have it! Extremely tight gearing and probably less than half turn-to-turn lock than a typical road car gets on its steering. Its all about high speed stability there. Honda uses VGS in a variant of Japanese market S2000, low speed chooses gear ratios that allow for easier maneuverability and as speed increases, the gear ratio moves towards greater stability. In a fixed ratio system, you have to deal with a tradeoff.
Manueverability in urban/suburban settings.
In tight quarters like malls and supermarket parking lots, you can get into an open space briskly without edging into the oncoming lane or using reverse.
Re: u-turns, the mega-mall near me has traffic patterns that can take you to East Jabroo to do a legal U-eee. So drivers make the U-eee from the left turn lanes. Cars or trucks that can't do it in one tight turn end up having to back up in the middle of busy intersections. Couple days ago, I saw someone get t-boned while attempting this.
Turning radius is one reason I bought a CR-V instead of a 4wd pickup truck.
Answer to the Q: "Why don't F1 cars have a tight turning radius?"
a) They aren't driven in supermarket parking lots, and
b) They routinely travel at 200 mph.
This is yet another picky point, that is meaningless to 99% of car buyers.
Its not because of where they are driven. Its due to mechanical limitations. They are indeed designed for excellent handling at high speeds, a trade off. Besides steering gear ratio, track, wheelbase, and perhaps even the wheel diameter might come into play.
One may find it interesting that '05 NSX had a turning radius of 38.1 ft (more than the new CR-V that some are complaining about).
The complaints from some on the CR-V, however, were against similar vehicles, with similar turning radii, and here the difference for most people isn't significant.
The RAV4, for example, has a tighter turning radius than the CR-V with its standard 16" tires, but opt for 17" tires (more desirable, imo, and matching the CR-V) and the turning radius increases to a less than 1 ft difference, a difference I doubt few will ever notice.
Our '03 CR-V is a lot more fun to drive locally than our Pilot. A great deal of that has to do with the CR-V's quicker/shorter steering!
Kip
I had to pull over or guess at the gas gauge and all the other dancing bars.
The speedometer is visible at all times and this is where the gas gauge should be.
I did a road trip which I was "keeping up with traffic" though West VA mountains and noticed that I was going 92 uphill. Car milage did not like that, but the CR-V had no problems powerwise.
Really? :confuse:
I'd say at very least 1 in 4 care about it.
Dude, a couple of feet, that's is being picky.
We also have a new parking garage downtown that people are complaining about - last Saturday night I couldn't make the turn onto the first ramp after entering the building without backing up once. So it is a bit of a bother.
Harvey44, I carry my skis and snowboard inside my wagon since I don't want to expose the bases to a bunch of grit at 50 mph. But you do have a legit concern about flying projectiles in there (the image of one of my wet snowboard boots clunking me in the back of my head isn't pretty!).
The CR-V wouldn't be huge, but it does matter to people, obviously, or why would we even be having this discussion?
Enthusiast's, like us, are concerned with all kinds of things most of the buying public are not, and make a bigger deal out of them.
M
My '06 TL has a turning diameter of 39.7 ft and I do just fine with it. In fact, it doesn't feel much different than my '98 Accord which has a 36.4 ft turning diameter. At 37.8 ft diameter, I don't think it would make any difference compared to my Accord which works quite well.
By comparison, TSX has a turning diameter of 40 ft (more than TL, and RL which is also 39.7 ft) but it also uses a very tight steering gear ratio (and only 2.7 turns lock to lock).
My wagon's turning circle is 36.7 feet and it's easier to maneuver in the parking lots. But it has way less bulk than the minivan too, so that must help, at least psychologically?
Terry92270, I usually screw a half dozen footman loops to the insides of my rigs for attaching nets like that - handy for tying down bikes or potted plants too.
Since then, all ski gear has been tied down in some manner, any manner, before I leave the parking lot. Thank God it was the upper part, not the lower. It scares me people don't consider what a can of soup could do @ 50-60 miles per hour, hurtling out of the back seat in a sudden stop.... :surprise:
You make a great point though; we're all guilty of tossing cell phones, laptops, sporting goods and shopping stuff in our rides and taking off down the interstate.
I've even heard of loose spare tires in trunks smashing into the passenger compartment. And just think about all those sand bags tossed in the back of pickups when the cold weather hits. Yikes!
I'm also paranoid about those roof top rocket boxes like Harvey's coming off in front of me - hate following those or trailers.
You are so correct. We are all guilty of just tossing crap in. Just Monday I had stack of hardwood 2x4 & 2x6 blocks someone gave me, in the back of the Forester,unsecured. :surprise:
I'll shut up now, otherwise this will have to be moved to the vehicle safety thread....
I don't know how that affects anything. The ratio and turn-to-turn simply indicate the number of times the wheel has to be turned before the wheels lock. The angle of the wheels would be the same if it took two turns to lock or 20 turns to lock. The wheels would end up at the same angle.
the turning radius R (m) of the vehicle is calculated by the following equation.
R=(1+KV.sup.2)(L/.phi.s)
where .phi.s=.theta.s divided by a steering gear ratio of the vehicle.
(and that would make turning radius directly proportional to steering gear ratio).
In short, Honda took the compromise of slightly increasing the turning diameter, possibly to improve steering response... a trade off.
I may go to releasable bindings soon to avoid the broken leg. Now that the gear is so much stiffer (plastic) that is a huge concern. I've never skied a day of alpine, so I just can't go there.
Last year without my wife skiing, I never used the roof box, because we only had one pair of skis and it is definitely more convenient. It sounds like you live near the mountains and travel from home. We have a (small rustic) cabin in the mountains and are usually carrying a lot of stuff - hence the roof box.
I promise that mine won't come off.
Hmm...I need something CRV in this post...the turning circle. I love having a tight one, but I don't think it has every occured to me to check it out in a test drive. I think the key is to be able to turn around from a parking space on the side of the road to go the other direction. Not sure if that's the safest move either.
M