2007 Honda CR-V

terry92270

The mileage gain, FWD over AWD, is negligible, perhaps 1-2 MPG.

You do have snow in Kentucky, since I have gotten stuck in it, without chains, several times. :P

The resale/trade-in on AWD will render the up-front additonal moot, and you will be driving safer. Don't be afraid!

frostyy

I realize most people who buy the CR-V do use their rear seats...

but all I am saying is...for my use of this vehicle...the rear seats would always be folded and flipped...and my point is that the way the seats sit in that position seriously impede cargo going into the vehicle from the rear side doors....and sit incredibly high and are awkward, if not impossible to reach over for a person in the front seat (compared to, for example, a Jeep Grand Cherokee with rear seats folded flat)...

...I would have liked the rear seats to fold completely flat and on the same level as the rear cargo area...

for example, going to our cottage, we always load our vehicle from both the side and back...however.. only loading from the back is not a good option for us...the dog's bed resides back there in a permanent state...and it seems a bit difficult to reach through to pack everything from the back....with the rear seats flipped up, it definitely presents a smaller opening from the side door...

...for us...IF the rear seats were removable (which they aren't)...I would remove them, put them in the basement and leave them out of the vehicle until I was ready to trade the car...so, yes, I would be willing to lift the heavy seats that one time (as I did when we owned a van previously that had removeable seats)...

..I am still shopping actually...haven't decided on any vehicle yet...the Element is not an option for us with no 4WD and not sure about it's towing capacity? I guess the closest yet would probably be the yet to be released new version of the 2008 Jeep Liberty diesel which has similar cargo space, exterior dimensions, gas mileage, new rear hatch without the spare, and price range as the CR-V and fold flat rear seats, better towing capacity and full-time 4WD system....but I will have to test drive one to see what it's like...

I would have also liked to have had a 4WD feature on the Honda which enabled full-time 4WD given that I drive in a lot of snow and snow covered highways for half of the year....so that is why I am looking elsewhere...not to say that the CR-V isn't suitable for those who don't use it the way I do and don't require a full-time 4WD feature due to snow conditions...

corvette

I drive in heavy snow maybe once or twice a year... On those infrequent occasions, I've done fine with FWD and RWD sedans--not sure why the FWD CR-V should be any different. I appreciate your viewpoint, and it may come down to accepting one with AWD because that's all that's available.

terry92270

I agree with you.

Simply put, although many don't want to "pay" for leather, Navigation or AWD, all statistics show both of those return, on trade-in or sale, most of your original investment.

My analogy is the Microwave or even the I-Pod. Easy to do without, unless and until you buy one, and use it.....

topgun7

I went to San Francisco Auto show over the weekend and the CRV on display is very impressive. My concern is the handling and acceleration aspect of CRV. for those who has test driven or own an 07 CRV, how would you rate the handling for day to day use? Also what about the acceleration? Is it good enough to merge into heavy traffic (which require a fast burst of acceleartion) and handle the daily "traffic light derby"?

terry92270

Most of today's 4 cylinder engines have more than enough power for that sort of thing.....if you haven't driven one, you should.

First time for me was a 4 Cylinder Camry, about 4 years ago. The GM was a buddy of mine, and he tricked me. When he told me it was a four, I nearly blew over.

I have driven the CRV on Southern California's demanding freeways, and on the rural back roads and mountain passes of Northern Nevada. It more than holds its own.

bodble2

I agree that if you were to buy a SUV, SAV, or Cross-over, then you have to get AWD, even if it is the relatively wimpy RT-AWD. If not, then you may as well just get a wagon.

However, leather is a different story, especially that stuff that Honda tries to pass off as quality leather on the CR-V. :mad: Unless it's bundled with something you really, really wanted, I wouldn't bother with leather.

bodble2

I had to rent a car last week. It turned out to be an '07 Camry I4. Wow! That thing's got smoothness and power that would put some V6's to shame! I didn't drive it on the highway, but around town, there is absolutely, positively no reason why anyone would need to get the V6. In fact, that I4's got so much torque that, IMO, it is almost undriveable without traction control (which the rental didn't have) if the road surface is the least bit slick. It was raining pretty hard here last week, and it was too easy to spin the front tires, even from the rolling start!

terry92270

I don't know what you would consider "quality". Our Q45 supposedly has "luxury" leather, its supple, for sure....but for any car, leather always beats cloth. Now I do realize some don't like it, claim its too hot or cold for them. Thats what makes the world go around.

For a SUV, all around utility, I consider the leather to be a must, simply because of all the mud and gunk we have out in the sticks. It cleans easier, doesn't rip or snag like cloth.

richk6

Every review I have read of the 07 Honda CRV, hard copy or online, has praised the "quality" of the interior.

Some reviews were critical of the exterior design, especially the front end and not offering a V6. But none criticized the interior including the leather.

Motor Trend, in it's Dec. issue, praised the CRV interior as "cool, modern design, tight gaps and seams, excellent build quality, simple, elegant layout"

kipk

The mileage gain, FWD over AWD, is negligible, perhaps 1-2 MPG.

You do have snow in Kentucky, since I have gotten stuck in it, without chains, several times.

The resale/trade-in on AWD will render the up-front additional moot, and you will be driving safer. Don't be afraid!

Good Post!

Even here in northern middle Ga. we get snow or, even worse, ICE occasionally. Last year my wife was able to get out of her iced uphill parking lot at work when others could not. She said that several times she was able to get around cars stuck on hills.

Another time we were at a flea market and the parking lot was a flat grassy field. A thunderstorm developed and it rained hard for about an hour. The field turned to mush!
We pulled right out while most were waiting their turn to be towed by a 4WD tractor.

There were other incidents where the 4WD made a difference. To us it would be worth every dime in peace of mind and safety, even if the extra money was lost.
Because most of that money is recovered at resale or trade- in, it is a no brainer.

Seems that the rear end dope goes Maybe 30K? Wouldn't think the cost would be more than $40 bucks or so. Especially if being done during normal routine service.

MPG has more to do with driving habits than whether or not the 4WD is ready to be used if needed!

Kip

kipk

...for us...IF the rear seats were removable (which they aren't)...I would remove them, put them in the basement and leave them out of the vehicle until I was ready to trade the car...

Frostyy, I'm pretty sure the seats are not welded in place. Looks like there may be bolts holding them in place.

..I am still shopping actually...haven't decided on any vehicle yet...the Element is not an option for us with no 4WD and not sure about it's towing capacity?...

Haven't really looked at the Element lately. I know it used to come in 4WD. Is that not still available? Seems it tows about 1500 #.

Sounds like you might need the Jeeps full time AWD and better towing. Suspect you will be in for some sticker shock though!

Kip

c_hunter

To me, the biggest advancement of the 07 CR-V over its predecessors is the handling -- significantly better, to the point of being carlike. I thought previous generations were too tippy feeling.

Power is very adequate. Not a hot rod by any means, but it does fine for day to day driving. But you must be willing to let the engine rev to get some oomph. The engine is very smooth however, so it's not a big deal.

lzc

The new CR-V is lower than the previous model, resulting in handling that's closer, but not equal, to a typical passenger car. It's better than most SUVs, imo.

Our new CR-V went from Oregon to the Bay Area last weekend. I'd classify its acceleration during high speed freeway merging as "adequate." The first 3 gears are better suited for responsive in town driving.

It handled mountain passes with ease. In fact, 4th & 5th gear could be a little taller for better mileage, imo. I don't need to accelerate smartly from 85 mph, which the CR-V will do. Roundtrip mileage: 28 mpg, which included several mtn passes and 3 days of Bay Area traffic, which is more stop than go.

corvette

Most reports I have read indicate that additional options have a smaller ROI than the underlying vehicle when you trade the vehicle in. Honda's NAV models have a lower lease residual percentage than their non-NAV models. I'd bet that, everything else being equal, a FWD LX would retain a larger percentage of its initial cost than an AWD EX-L. Indeed, the LX offers extremely impressive value--six airbags, skid control, and power options for $20k. But, I'm partial to sunroofs, body-colored trim, and leather.

terry92270

What you said is contrary to the ROI for all makes and models, in general.

Leather and AWD is in bigger demand than FWD, on all brands.

Besides, ROI is pure BS. Investments are made to make money, not lose it. :P

bodble2

"For a SUV, all around utility, I consider the leather to be a must..."

Not necessarily. As I posted elsewhere, I love the leatherette in our Mini. So much so that, if we were to buy the BMW X3, which we're cross-shopping against the RDX, I would likely opt for the leatherette over the leather, for its low-maintenance and ability to withstand water (ie. kids jumping in with soaked ski jackets).

bodble2

I have not personally seen the leather in the new CR-V, but I have test driven the RDX, and I thought the leather in that was nothing to write home about. It was a notch below the leather in the TL, which itself is not great. If the leather in the new CR-V is anything close to that in the old CR-V, then it's definitely no good. The only problem is the cloth in the old CR-V was also crap, so the leather may have been more desireable only by default! I almost wish Honda would offer a good leatherette comparable to that in BMWs.

corvette

If you want heated seats, body-colored trim, or the factory satellite radio (and, eventually, navigation), you have no choice but to get the leather--regardless of its quality.

terry92270

Most manufacturers, in the US at least, no longer offer "Leatherette" (plastic). The main draw-back with plastic is that after a few years it splits and cracks.

I ski, both water and snow, regularly. I have never had a problem with leather getting wet from jackets or swimsuits.....

blueiedgod

The seats in the CR-V are removable. Take the 4 bolts holding them in place and remove. Simple 10 minute job. Pretty much everything is removable. They don't stamp the floor pan with the seats molded in it. That would be ridiculous.

bodble2

Sad...but true.

bodble2

"The main draw-back with plastic is that after a few years it splits and cracks."

So does poor quality leather.

terry92270

It does? Goodness you sure told me! :P

Would you care to share with us about when this happened to you, and what make/model/year it was? I don't know of any manufacturers using poor quality leather.

stever

Here's a good post about caring for leather seats:

aaronwi, "Cleaning Leather/Cloth Interiors" #23, 22 Apr 2005 10:12 am

All in all, I'd rather have heated cloth ones myself.

c_hunter

It's a pity you can't get heated cloth on more cars nowadays (Subaru seems to be one of the few makes who offer this). At least on Hondas, you have to go with leather to get heated seats. I too prefer heated cloth seats.

terry92270

Using leather products on your vehicle seats does indeed fall under the catagory of "Duh!". Once a year is all I have ever done it. For people who drive lots, and have kids, many prefer the leather, as it won't fray and pull as cloth does. Doesn't get as dirty either.

The owners manual for my Murano also says to use a leather cream, once a year. Especially in dry climates.

bodble2

"I don't know of any manufacturers using poor quality leather."

Then you haven't been paying enough attention, pal.

You own a Nissan...you should know plenty about cheap leather. At the auto show a couple or 3 years back, they had an Altima with a big split in the rear leather seat. Even my 13-year-old son commented on how cheap the seats looked. IMO, the leather in the Infiniti G, and Murano is also so-so at best.

There have also been TL owners complaining that their leather seats have ripped. Mine haven't ripped, but there are wrinkles, sags, stretch marks.

I know leather smells nice, is good for resale, blah, blah, blah. But for overall comfort...nothing beats good old cloth. For low maintenance...nothing beats a good quality leatherette (even though I realize BMW is one of the few, if not only, manufacturers making leatherette that looks and feels good).

terry92270

Maybe, it's just a Canadian thing, pal. :P

I had my first Murano for three years, never a problem. If they had one at some auto show, with such a split, maybe it was vandalism. I do remember owning a Caddy that split at the seam, due to faulty stitching, not the leather.

I would look into this, if I were you...could be we are exporting the rejects North. :surprise:

bodble2

"I would look into this, if I were you...'

Umm...nah...what's there to look into? I see what I see. Maybe you have lower expectations, or just choose not to see...ignorance is bliss, I suppose...pal.

kipk

Bought our leather clad pilot January '03. No problems what so ever. NONE! Admittedly the driver seat has the slightest
puffy look on the bottom cushion. That cushion surface is not as tight as the others. I don't expect it to be as it is used 50-100 times more that the front passenger and even more than that for the rears. Never been cleaned or treated.

The 95 Maxima we traded for the 03 CR-V had leather. Those seat bottoms were not stretched "tight" to begin with. When we traded that 8 yr old car they looked as good as when new. They were never cleaned or treated until trade in time!

There is very little actual leather used inside the "average" car. Mainly the seat "cushion centers". The bolsters, edges, backs are NON-Leather. With exception of "SOMETIMES" the steering wheel, most other "Leather surfaces" are not leather. Nothing on the Pilot 3rd row seat is leather. Thus in the brochures, manufactures say "Leather Seating Surfaces".

There may be more "leather" surfaces in the high priced spreads.

Leather is supposed to stretch. It does so when breaking in a holster, shoes, baseball mit, etc..

Leather does poorly, compared to Vinyls, in direct sun such as motorcycle seats, boat seats, tractor seats, etc. Todays cars with UV Protection in the glass, help a lot.

It would be pretty stupid for a mfg to intentionally use "POOR" quality. (Exception being possibly some built to sell in Canada). :sick:

With a well perforated light colored seat I would just as soon have a top quality Leatherette, Pleather, or what ever else they now use to make up 90% of the interior, When they give it the look and FEEL of the real thing.

As long as it holds up up as well as leather.

Kip

lzc

My neighbor has a 1999 Accord with leather and two large dogs who regularly ride in the back seat. The front seats look quite good, while the back shows expected wear and tear.

I expect the leather in my CR-V will do as well. Is the leather Mercedes/BMW quality? No. But then, the CR-V will likely be a far more reliable vehicle for about $20,000 less money. Expecting it to match the leather of other, more expensive vehicles is unrealistic.

bodble2

"It would be pretty stupid for a mfg to intentionally use "POOR" quality."

I would also be pretty stupid for a mfg to give you top quality leather if they can't charge you for it. You get what you pay for. My point was (is) for a lower-priced car (such as a CR-V), rather than lower-quality leather, I would much rather have a high-quality fabric, or leatherette. BTW, Honda, in the 80's and early 90's, used to have some of the best cloth seats in the industry. Sadly, the fabric they use in more recent years are no where as good. (Perhaps it is a strategy to up-sell leather to guys like you and terry :sick: )

robertsmx

Let us just use comments from Edmund's review...

"Tight handling, upscale interior, high level of standard equipment, smooth ride, class-leading fit and finish"

Doesn't look like they found the leather to be "low quality". May be not the kind one would expect in an Acura or a Lexus, but must be good enough for the price class. What else would you compare it with?

lolu13

I have issues with the design of the back seats. I have 2 medium/large sized dogs. I keep the seats folded down most of the time. When I put them in the back, it makes the floor so deep that they can hardly get their noses out the window when I roll it down. Not only that, but when I open up the side door, it is VERY narrow and makes it hard for them to get in and out of. It is actually not bad having the back seats fold up as a "barrier" to the front seat. However, it does make it hard to access anything back there just by trying to turn around.

I made a 5 inch platform for the dogs in my new CR-V. I used thick pieces of 4 foot styrofoam, batting material that you find for cushions, and then covered it in light gray material to match the interior. I custom fit it so that it pushes up against the folded seats and lays flat. Now they can get their snouts out the window and be real dogs.

To me, this was high maintenance to do (but I would do anything for my dogs, so)...I really think they need to rethink their designing of the back seats.

frostyy

As another dog owner, I totally agree with your assessment of the vehicle...except...

...I'm not willing to build a platform which essentially would take up precious cargo space...rather wait on the 2008 Jeep Liberty which, based on current prices, will be in the same price range as the CR-V I was looking at (Leather interior without NAV) and will have flat-folding rear seats (level with the rear cargo area) and that don't need to flip up and thus, impede the size of the side door opening....

kipk

Look inside a 3+ year old Higher priced car and you will see the leather has "stretch" showing just like the lower priced cars. If it didn't stretched some, it would have been stiff and non pliable to begin with. They are not intentionally going to do that. Look inside an eight year old "HIGHER" priced one, and you will see some stretch.

The main difference in $25K-$35K car leather is the finish they may put on the surface of the leather. More expensive may have a softer or more luxurious finish. But that is just what it is. Not necessarily "HIGHER QUALITY" as far as the piece of leather itself, or wear and resistance to tears etc..Look real close, pull it, pinch it and you may see.

When you get into obscenely high priced cars you may find "THICKER LEATHER".

I would also be pretty stupid for a mfg to give you top quality leather if they can't charge you for it.

They charge for every item in a car!

(Perhaps it is a strategy to up-sell leather to guys like you and terry ) :sick:

Yep! They know you are too smart for em! :surprise: Probably worries them a lot.

BTW I stick by my statement that an Auto Mfg would be stupid to put "POOR" quality leather in their cars. Especially an otherwise fine car. Leather that splits, or tears or grossly stretches would be a serious black eye to that mfg. I don't believe Honda would intentionally do it!

Just curious! Maybe we are on different pages here. What is your idea of good quality verses poor quality? :confuse:

Kip

kipk

That be a good thing across the board!

Any specs or test that you know of? URLs and such?

Thanks,

Kip

lzc

While Edmunds found the interior "upscale," the Wall Street Journal reviewer described it as "el cheapo." There's no pleasing everyone.

Given the "decontenting" the Japanese did in the 90s, especially to interiors (my 98 Accord seats didn't hold up well), the interior quality of the latest Toyota and Honda offerings are a pleasant surprise. Our new hybrid Camry interior is far superior to the sad 97-01 period.

kipk

In an earlier post you said you were interested in the Liberty Diesel.

If you can get a Liberty DIESEL equipped the same as a CR-V for about the same price, it sounds like just what you are looking for.

Just think you might be surprised at the REAL bottom line!

Keep in mind that, at least today, Diesel fuel cost more than Reg gas. Diesel cars/truck cost more to purchase, more to service and generally have a lower resale/trade value.

Kip

c_hunter

My first reaction was that the interior was el-cheapo too. Look at all the hard plastic surfaces on the dash and doors. This is a significant step below our Acura and Subaru, and even my S2000. But after test driving the CR-V, I conceded that the inteior looks OK and functions just fine. It's only when touching all the surfaces that I don't like it. I guess for $22-26K in Honda dollars I can expect the interior to look good but not feel good. They must reserve the feel "upgrade" for better models....

And for the record, I thought the leather was a step below what I am used to as well. Still, it seems perfectly adequate.

kipk

Hunter,
What are the new model Acuras and Subarus using where Honda uses Hard surfaces?

When you say the leather is a "step below", are you speaking of the "Feel", the eye appeal? Do you think it will hold up?

Of course time will tell. Just asking because you tend to be subjective and honest in your opinions. What is your gut feel?

Thanks,
Kip

bodble2

"Yep! They know you are too smart for em! Probably worries them a lot."

Here's a thought for you to ponder when you're not busy trying to be sarcastic: Why do mfg, Honda included, tend to bundle leather into a higher-trim model, or with other options that people want? Could it be that leather has a higher profit margin, ie. less value? Hmmm.... :confuse:

"What is your idea of good quality verses poor quality?"

It's not just my idea. As you can see from various other postings here, there are varied opinions on the quality of the CR-V interior and leather. Just for your benefit, I consider the leather in all Honda models to be of lower quality, slightly worse than Nissan's. Acura's a step up, but only average. Volvos have nice leather. Does that help with your visualization?

c_hunter

My current 05 Outback, our Acura TSX, and the 07 Acura RDX I have been looking at, all use soft/padded materials on the upper parts of the door and dash (where you are likely to touch or feel the surfaces). Older Hondas were always this way as well (I can remember back as far as my 93 Civic). I like that -- it just seems nicer and has a warmer look/feel. The hard stuff always seems cold and harsh, like a cut-rate airport rental car.

The CR-V leather feels thinner and softer than what I am used to. I think it will hold up OK, but it doesn't have that taut /supple feel I associate with my current vehicles (now, they do have very supportive sport seats, so that could be part of it). I think I made the analogy before that the CR-V leather feels like IKEA leather to me. If you ever shopped there for furniture, you would know what I mean. It's decent quality at a fair price, but a step below the good stuff. Despite that statement, I have to go on record to say that our IKEA leather chair is holding up just fine!

Anyway, if you get a chance to look at an Acura RDX and then a CR-V, which both share the same platform, you can see the differences I am talking about.

thegraduate

My current 05 Outback, our Acura TSX, and the 07 Acura RDX I have been looking at, all use soft/padded materials on the upper parts of the door and dash (where you are likely to touch or feel the surfaces). Older Hondas were always this way as well (I can remember back as far as my 93 Civic). I like that -- it just seems nicer and has a warmer look/feel. The hard stuff always seems cold and harsh, like a cut-rate airport rental car.

I know what you mean about that; my 1996 has soft touch materials all across the dash, whereas my 2006 has hard (although not cheap feeling/sounding - when you knock on it) plastic.

kipk

Go back and look at your posts. You will find plenty of sarcasm there.

I asked:
"What is your idea of good quality verses poor quality?"

From your answer it would seem whether or not you like or do not like something deems it good or poor quality in your mind. Apparently that is your measure.

"As you can see from various other postings here, there are varied opinions on the quality of the CR-V interior and leather".

Yes there are. Each of them have their opinion concerning the touch and visual of the different aspects of the interior and leather. Some like it and some don't. Although there may be some, I don't recall any of them, except you, referring to the leather as "POOR" quality. I don't recall any of them telling another poster about the crappy interior in that posters Nissan.

"Why do mfg, Honda included, tend to bundle leather into a higher-trim model, or with other options that people want? Could it be that leather has a higher profit margin, ie. less value?"

I would think so. Remind yourself that you said they can't charge enough in a CR-V priced car to include good leather. Now you are saying leather is a high profit item. Which is it?

A quality product conforms to requirements. The leather in our Honda does exactly what it is supposed to do. Therefore it is a quality product. Nothing "Poor" about it!

Whether or not someone likes the way it looks or feels does not change that. If it wears well, doesn't fade excessively, doesn't split for no obvious reason, and stays reasonably tight, it has met the requirement. Quality product!

On the other hand, take the most expensive leather known to man. Put it into an automobile. I don't care how nice it looks or feels. If any of the things mentioned above should happen, it is lesser quality than the above one. It did not meet requirements.

If nothing goes wrong with either, they are both quality products. One simply looks and feels a lot better than the other and cost more.

"If I have to explain it, you won't understand"

Kip

kipk

Both our 03 Hondas have hard surfaces on the upper door panel just under the windows. Dash is hard also. Feels very solid.
No squeeks or rattles and very easy to clean/dust.

Must be quality plastic! Good fit, looks like it will last.

Hunter, thanks for your input.

Kip

bodble2

"Remind yourself that you said they can't charge enough in a CR-V priced car to include good leather. Now you are saying leather is a high profit item. Which is it?"

Oh my God, you mean you can't even wrap your head around the concept that high profit margin is not exclusive to high-quality?! You see those dollar stores springing up all over the place? You know how they prosper? By selling low-quality items at a high profit margin. Please note that I refered to margin. Do you understand what margin means? To quote a certain noted philosopher: "If I have to explain it, you won't understand". What a joke!

"If it wears well, doesn't fade excessively, doesn't split for no obvious reason, and stays reasonably tight, it has met the requirement. Quality product!"

That's it? Those are your only criteria for quality? Nothing about how suppleness, softness, how it feels to the touch, consistency in the leather, grain pattern, etc.? None of those qualities enters into the equation for you? :confuse: Just take the thickest piece of hide from the cow's [non-permissible content removed] and you'll be happy as a clam! Where do you shop for your wardrobe? Wal-mart?

I guess it's true that there's no accounting for taste. :sick:

tidester

How about if we just move on?

tidester, host

lolu13

Yeah, but that's a Jeep. I just traded my Laredo for this new CR-V. I wanted dependability, reliability, and good mileage. That American made Jeep just didn't live up to the quality that I wanted. Honda fit the bill.

Yes, I have to live with the awful backseats, but it's still a Honda.