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.
30% is a solid improvement. The highest markup I've seen (for diesel vs. gas) around here is about 20%, so there would still be gains, plus you get more range if the tank remains the same size.
Then the question becomes, how much more for the diesel CR-V vs. the gasoline one?
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.
Europe would be a place where the diesel market is already there, wouldn't you say? They released the diesel Accord about one year earlier than the CR-V. When the diesel CR-V was released, it coincided with the MMC.
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.
That's interesting. Hopefully, my whole little idea of $2,500 will be blown out the window, and we'll only be looking at $800-$1,200. That would be wonderful.
That was then. This is now. Most americans just want more power not necessarily "wanting to go fast" as you say. You obviously don't tow,so you don't know. Towing is benefited by larger amounts of torque produced lower in the RPM range. This is where the diesel is superior to the gasser because it's size for size torque advantage is further enhanced as maximum torque is produced @ say 2000 vs. say 5000 RPMs. So someone else was to blame for your prior faulty judgements? That's what they all say,isn't it?
Of course torque is produced lower in the RPM range, look at where the redlines are.
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.
Hopefully Honda will hold down the price of the diesel to $800-1200 more then a standard gas engine. Paying $2500 more would be too much, considering the possibility Honda may put the A-VTEC engine in which would be about a 13% improvement in efficiency and mpg.
Gassers and diesels are quite different animals. They are not just designed to run with different characteristics they are different machines. Nothing wrong w/ the gas engines,I agree. If you tow you want the most torque available at the lowest rpm.
True, but I'm going to agree with varmint here and say that not many CR-V owners tow. Not sure I've ever seen one with a trailer behind it except Honda's own pre-production tester, come to think of it.
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.
During a recent trip to Europe, I noticed that EU C-RV models have Bluetooth built in to the Nav. The Navi looks exactly the same as over here, except it also has bluetooth I wonder why Honda USA decided to leave Bluetooth out in US models. It definitely sucks.
You should fill the trailer up with a load of those fake fiberglass rocks sometimes and go cruise around town with your Forester or use a CR-V.
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
I guess here in the USA we tend to have an overkill mentality, i.e. if you need to tow then you'd better get that full-size truck with 9100 lbs towing capacity.
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 didn't know I had to be a "toddler mom" as a prerequisite to purchase a CRV. I mean the salesman never mentioned it even once! As gas prices increase over time buyers will consider what they need more than what they only want. These small suv's are great for towing small sailboats,small fishing boats,jet skis,small trailers, etc. With the diesel in the CRV you will see more light towing applications. Did I say the CRV would replace the pickup? No. Many of us have other toys in our toyboxes/garages and want to save space. Many of us prefer driving more nimble vehicles than a "doublecab longbed" which will not even fit most garages. You are underestimating the # of people who will tow with a small vehicle if the vehicle is capable and economical. The diesel CRV w/250 foot pounds of torque will be great for light towing.
I agree about the diesel being a good application for towing, but we still disagree about the number of light duty towers. IMHO we're a rare breed.
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 know that was Honda's demo. Just kiddin' w/ you. Actually, my Accord works fine for me. I just fold down the rear seat and put my 6' rods in thru the trunk opening. My 11.3 bass boat,motors,custom trailer,and stuff weigh 675# so it pulls easily and is much more practical and comfortable than a truck for me. The Ridgeline just doesn't do it for me. I prefer the lesser size,weight,ground clearance of an Accord or a CRV. You are right, most people go bigger for towing. I just think people will gravitate to smaller more efficient vehicles as gasoline prices rise. Hey,can we help it ,if we are ahead of our time? I'm just a fun fisherman,release all my fish.
We are toddler Moms :-) the anomoly of the forum. I own a 2000lb (when empty) dump trailer. Currently I have an F250 V8 which is a gas guzzler. I don't want a large diesel truck. I am holding out for a small diesel pickup that can handle 5000lb tow rating. I would definatley have waited for the CR-V diesel if it were coming next year instead of buying this year (not for towing). THe main reason is better gas and better emissions using bio diesel. Here in Seattle bio-diesel is readily available. There are 2 stations within 3 miles of my house. Does anyone know if Honda will do what VW has done as far as making it bio diesel friendly?
Honda hit a homerun with the 2007 CRV. Especially if gas prices creep up again. They stayed with the economical 4cyl, a 5sp auto and they got that doofus spare off the back. I think it's the only small SUV to hit 30mpg hwy... with an automatic.
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.
Folks just get too serious concerning towing/hauling needs! I see a lot of Towing done with large vehicles that could have easily been done with much smaller ones.
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.
Actually the RAV4 gets 30 mpg highway and is one better in the city at 24 mpg vs cr-v's 23. So Toyota wins the mpg gane on small SUV's. But I do like Honda's hatch design without the spare sticking off the back and the dash is nicer.
I agree with Kip. I am a contractor and want a small diesel p/u to haul my 5x10 dump trailer. I don't haul it everywhere and need the F250 to haul it when loaded. I do have tools that I haul around everywhere. I could also eliminate this by purchasing an enclosed trailer that I keep at job sites all set up with tools. I want a smaller vehicle/truck that can handle the hauling when needed but gets great gas mileage and is better on the environment. I also have a little Tacoma but going from one truck to the other is time consuming and costs me a lot in insurance. 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?
I couldn't agree more,guys. I live in Dallas. The land of Big. I purchased a small bass boat that I could pull with my pre existing 95 ex I4 Accord. Pulled it 85K easily w/ no problems. Traded for 2002 exl v6 Accord. Can't even tell the boat is there when towing. I've towed it 50,000. Not even 1 rattle and get 24-25 while towing. Why get a PU then have to get a cover to lock your stuff up,etc.,etc.etc. I think a unibody small suv with enough motor for your light towing needs is much more practicle and economic. Can't wait to see/drive a Honda diesel suv. FYI, my rig weighs 650#. Suvs are superior in every way unless you are working the truck. P.S. I can also park it in my garage!
Neighbor's RAV V6 gets 22c-29h. Toyota's tend to get slightly better mileage than Hondas because Toyota tends to use slightly higher final drive ratios than Honda.
Sometimes our friends and neighbors tell us things that may not be 100% accurate. They read it in a brochure, checked one tank of gas, etc..
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.
Problem is, if Honda offered a very capable diesel CR-V, it might eat in to more profitable Pilot and Ridgeline sales.
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.
Problem is, if Honda offered a very capable diesel CR-V, it might eat in to more profitable Pilot and Ridgeline sales.
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.
A reporter with a national newspaper is hoping to talk to Honda owners who researched safety ratings before making their purchase. Please reply to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, March 29, 2007 with your daytime contact info.
Question... a second or two after I shift our new 2007 2WD CRV from park into drive, I hear a, "click," (It sounds more like, "chick.") ostensibly from something engaging in the transmission.
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.
Can't say I have experienced what you describe. Naturally my little gremlin ('07 CRV Intermitant no start - no crank) post of Mar. 7th has not returned as of yet. To try & help you I have noticed over the years that Honda automatics seem to have just a second of time longer to have engagement & can be a little mechanical in sound & feel, this is normal. Are you sure you are not hearing the door locks engage?... They are programmable & can be set to lock when trans is engaged. My wife has ours set up to lock the moment the shift lever is put into gear... hence "move shift lever" to reverse or drive "CLICK NOISE" is heard & all doors are locked. Just 1 possibility for your situation. :confuse:
Yes... I don't remember exactly where but it's in it. I seem to remember that there about 6 differant configurations you can program for your personnel desired lock/unlock settings
Not True! The Rav 4 gets LESS MPG than stated on the window sticker, while the Honda gets BETTER (between 2 and 5 mpg after the breakin period) according to Car and Driver's real world tests. PLUS The reccomended fuel for Toyotas is premium unleaded (Check the owner's manual) while Honda uses REGULAR unleaded. 87 octane. Honda has the most fuel effecient cars on the market!
It's true!!! my wife (she's primary driver) has it programmed so all doors lock when shifter is put into gear & just drivers door unlocks when she puts back into park... (this is a girl thing I'm sure... nothing personnel to all you fellow female posters). Also ours is set up that when you click the remote to unlock but don't actually open a door it will relock itself after 2 minutes, I have to say it is pretty cool!
Also ours is set up that when you click the remote to unlock but don't actually open a door it will relock itself after 2 minutes
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.
I am sure you are absolutely correct my friend, after my haste to post that very thought occured to me as well. I will openly admit this CRV is our first car with all the bells & whistles & I am still learning all the gadgets & electronic goodies. thank's for the update.
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