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
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
It's really not that much different! Maybe it's the oil companies charging more since (I think) diesel may be used to get heating oil for our homes? Supply and demand? Why has diesel power taken over in Europe? Costs less? Definitely better mpg.
Still with Honda saying a 30% improvement in mileage with the 2.2 i-CDI engine and with the torque think this is still the way to go with the CR-V.
Then the question becomes, how much more for the diesel CR-V vs. the gasoline one?
NOTICE: THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART
I'd guess about $2,500. Honda seems to charge $2,500 for all its engine upgrades.
Accord V6 is $2,350 more (with extra features, mind you). Accord Hybrid? $2,650 more than the EX V6.
Civic Si Sedan? $2,580 more than a Civic EX MT Sedan.
Civic Hybrid Sedan? $2,590 more than a Civic EX AT Sedan.
See a trend?
VW's surcharge for the TDI was around $800 IIRC.
I do see complaints about wanting a V6. These complaints are most often based on wanting to go fast. Diesels are not fast. The 6MT diesel CR-V in Europe gets to 60 kph in about 10-11 seconds. That's no faster than a 5AT CR-V here in North America. In fact, CAR has it posting a 0-60 time only 0.3 seconds faster than the 2.0L version.
Your assuming that addition power means additional towing capacity. You're ignoring brakes, suspension, tires, etc. In reality, the diesel sold in Europe offers only a 25% improvement over the petrol version. If we apply that to US specs (obviously, only as a best guess), we're looking at a gain of 375 lbs over existing vehicles.
"Btw, aren't you the guy who said the CRV would only be moderately successful on the TOV forum?"
Yeah, I did that because some shmoe came around spouting off about how he had "insider information", which turned out to be completely bogus. His handle was "blue" something over at TOV. Once the real specs were released, and he/she was proven a liar, I had a much less harsh view of the current model.
Out of curiousity, how much was a diesel Jeep Liberty, or a Hybrid Escape vs. its conventional counterparts? That may help with pricing insight.
Compared to the V6 Auto, mileage went from 17/22 to 22/26. That's about a 20% improvement, while Honda gives you +30%. :shades:
The gas engines rev higher because they are designed to rev higher. That's not necessarily a problem, as Honda built its entire reputation on reliable and durable high-revving engines.
If anything, their diesels aren't nearly as proven. Yet.
Remember, they targeted the new CR-V at the "Toddler Mom", i.e. females with 1-2 kids around the toddler age.
I'll go out on a limb and say they do not own trailers.
In the UK, where it has a 2.0L petrol engine, the CR-V is rated to tow upwards of 3,500 lbs. Meanwhile, the torquier 2.4L CR-V we get here in NA is rated for only 1,500 lbs.
The Pilot and original MDX were rated for as much as 4,500 lbs with four occupants and luggage for a weekend. However, the Ridgeline is rated at 5,000 lbs, but with only two occupants and 200 lbs of luggage. Ditto that for the new MDX. In reality, there's only 200 lbs separating the old and new.
Most all other manufacturers use only a single occupant and no luggage in their published specs. In fact, you need to reduce your tow rating when you add accessories. In theory, adding a tow hitch to a Ford F-150 reduces its tow rating by the weight of the hitch.
We have no idea how many people or how much luggage is taken into account for the CR-V's tow rating. The 1,500 lbs rating is also listed as the "without trailer brakes" rating. In a very roundabout way that *suggests* there might be a higher rating for a trailers with brakes. :confuse:
Bottom line... the CR-V's rating probably has more to do with the Honda legal department than it does actual towing capacity. If Honda of America thought that towing was a big issue for the CR-V (it isn't), all they would need to do is get the legal girls & boys drunk the night before the specs are finalized.
The CR-V has always been successful in this market and it's accomplished that feat without ever being the most powerful or able to tow the most. It's simply not a big factor for the majority of buyers. Honda's market research from a few years back claimed 5-7% of the market actually tow something. Most of that 5-7% tow less than 1,500 lbs.
Besides, if you saw how much sod GatorGred crammed inside his CR-V, you would ... well you would laugh your tail off like the rest of us did!
-juice
PS I tow with my Forester, but I get dumb looks from all the pickup drivers when I have the trailer attached. It's that uncommon to them.
Everyone would be sure to give you lots of room, especially if you air down the trailer tires a bit and make a little swerve now and then. April 1st is just around the corner. :P
Don't mention my name to the cops.
I use my hitch for a bike rack most of the time. I figure it's got 150 lbs or so, tops.
The trailer is about 700 lbs, maybe 1500 lbs fully loaded.
That's all the capacity I need. The rest is overkill and not needed nor wanted. You tow 1% of the time, and I don't want to pay that hefty fuel bill the other 99% of the time when I'm not towing.
I guess Honda would just try to talk you in to a Pilot or a Ridgeline, and make a bigger profit while doing so.
FWIW, I think the Ridgeline would make a good vehicle for that sort of thing. Especially for boats, given the in-bed trunk is water tight and would make a good cooler for all those fish you catch (hopefully!).
Better yet, the sideways swinging gate means you could probably open it partially even with a trailer attached.
The Toddler Mom wasn't my idea, it was Honda's target demographic. I'm sure they'll accept anyone's money, but that was their intended audience.
I'm eager to see the mpg figures on the Nissan Rogue coming this fall. It has a 2.5 4cyl and a CVT. That combination does very well in the Altima.
Example: A friend recently bought a full size Ford F150 for those occasional trips to Home Depot or the nursery. A light duty hauler and/or lite weight trailer would have done the job and burned a lot less fuel in the process of every day commuting to and from work, etc....
Folks in the construction business or those that have large campers or boats to tow obviously need more power and tow vehicle weight, but I suspect that a great majority of "TOWERS/HAULERS" could do it with much smaller and efficient vehicles.
Kip
But I do like Honda's hatch design without the spare sticking off the back and the dash is nicer.
People seem to think bigger is better and bigger is safer.
The truck companies have done a great marketing job targeting folks to buy these larger trucks. Why can't they just make a smaller more efficient truck?
The folks over on the RAV4 "Real world MPG" are complaining about their mileage like we do here.
Some are getting the 30mpg on the highway just like some of us do. Some are real upset about the poor mileage, just like here..
Gotta keep in mind the EPA numbers are not real world! They are "guestaments" made under controlled conditions and environments.
So under perfect conditions the RAV4 may be better. Real world would be a toss up at best!
BTW The RAV4 is having some teething problems with some design flaws, according to their forums!
Kip
I believe that the new 2008 EPA is 28 MPG highway.
Example my son said his V8 Grand Cherokee gets 21-22 mpg average. That info was coming from the car's display as he was driving..
Real world, after tracking several tanks, was more like 19.3. One more push of the display's button and his average mileage, since who knows when, showed 19.1. Pretty accurate.
Higher gear ratios may indicate better mileage to EPA testing. MFG check these things from one end to the other according to their individual vehicles characteristic.
Kip
We, the enthusiasts that flock to these boards, are a bit unique. If you surveyed us, we'd probably have manufactureres build a back-to-basics diesel that only came with a manual transmission.
Problem is they'd sell about 3. And that would probably not include the 3 of us.
Honda does a pretty good job at aiming at the heart of any given segment. The CR-V doesn't chase the fringes with a powerful V6 or turbo, or the trailer towers with a factory tow package, or any other limited niche.
They aim directly at the middle of the segment, and given the sales figures so far, they pretty much hit the bulls' eye.
Sure, we have ideas, but I bet the marketing folks there are counting their bonuses and scoffing at some of the suggestions they read here.
Yes it might unless they also offered a neat Diesel in those vehicles. :shades:
For commuting I drive the Pilot and she drives the CR-V.
We mostly use the CR-V locally, as it is more nimble and more fun to drive and park. However for trips, the size and weight of the Pilot are more desirable.
Kip
Basically, it sounds like someone taking a single whack at the flat part of an anvil with the flat side of a butter knife. Don't ask me where I came up with that description, but basically, it sounds like something lightweight coming into contact with something more solid.
In any event, is this the standard sound that the 2WD transmission makes when it's shifted from park into drive? I'd appreciate it if someone else out there with a 2007 2WD model would answer my question.
Thanks
Honda has the most fuel effecient cars on the market!
I don't recall hearing about that feature in the '07. I'm pretty sure the last generation did not have it. Nice.
Almost all remote locking works this way... That way, if you accidently press the button putting the fob in your purse or pants pocket, you don't inadvertently unlock your vehicle... I don't think it is configurable, just SOP.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator