The RAV4 has more pickup The RAV4 seats are uncomfortable The CRV seats are nicer and more comfortable The CRV ride is way more comfortable, more car-like than truck-like. I prefer car-like riding.
I then drove them again, and again, and again. I sat in the back and had my husband drive so I could see what it would be like for the kids. I liked the ride in the back in the CRV WAY MORE.
Hubby is tired of me obsessing on this, but it's a big decision for me, as we keep our cars a long time, and I am the one who will be living in it.
My hesitation at this point rests on these things:
I like a lot of the way the RAV4 is set up inside, except for the console - no room for my purse with a passenger in the other front seat.
I like the easier mechanism for folding the seats down in the RAV4, and they lay flatter.
I am tired of the hatch on my Sienna, and would be retaining the necessity of lifting up/pushing down with the CRV even though it is lighter.
Is the pickup in the RAV4 really better or am I just not used to Honda engines/trannies? I had an Accord 20 years ago and loved it, didn't have troubling merging onto the highway. The last time I drove the CRV, the one I drove seemed better in merging than the first time I drove one. So is it just my imagination? We are comparing 4 cylinder models, not the V6 in the RAV4. I really don't need a V6.
Honda dealers seem harder to work with, because they have the upper hand in the supply/demand arena. So many times we ended up buying Toyotas instead of Hondas because the dealers wouldn't act nice or couldn't get a car in a reasonable amount of time.
And finally (this is a nit-picky girl thing), I just really really love the RAV4 green color. Waiting to see the CRV green, but I don't think I am going to like it, and I also want gray interior, so I would have to go with my second choice, Glacier Blue.
I am very very close to choosing the CRV, though, because of the more car-like ride and the more comfortable seats.
Anyone have any comments about really tall high schoolers fitting into the driver's seat of the CRV? My son will be starting driver's ed this summer and he's concerned he won't fit. He's 6'2" and growing Haven't been able to get him inside one yet.
Also, my impressions are that the RAV4 has better visibility on the passenger's side; the CRV's little window at the end of the right side is completely obscured when someone is sitting in the right seat of the second row. Anyone have any comments on this?
I appreciate everyone's comments so far. It has helped tremendously.
I'm 6'2" tall and found that most passenger cars with sunroofs didn't have enough head room. So, I went looking at SUVs. Even with sunroof, the CR-V's headroom is fine, and that's with the seat adjusted as high as I can get it.
Some people complain that the CR-V is underpowered. Not for me. It's 4cyl engine will let you know its working if you need to accelerate quickly, but at cruising speed it's as quiet as any other engine.
The CR-V is really just a tall station wagon that's suitable, in AWD mode, for foul weather driving.
My wife likes her hybrid Camry, but for any trips she wants to take the CR-V because it's more comfortable. Good luck.
I have a crv w/navi for three months. I have driven Hondas and Acuras since 1981. However, I didn't like Gen 1 or 2 CRV so we had a 2001 Forester. When new CRV came out, we traded Forrester. We didn't like the tire outside of the old crv and rav 4. They are both great cars.
The 4 cylinder rav has 4 speed transmission, while the CRV has 5 speed. The seats in the CRV don't fold flat so you do lose that extra flat space , which we could have used yesterday buying plants and stuff. I haven'r let my wife drive it yet because I think she would trade me her TL because this CRV is simple to control, handles very well, has plenty of interior space, more room in the back seat for people and child car seats. However, nothing is forever. Even if you get the crv and don't like it after a year, it could probably be sold for a very small loss.
I think you are doing a good job of thinking of what works for you. You will be driving it and shopping it. So whatever works for you. I don't think the 4 cylinder Rav is quicker than the Crv. It may be "buzzier" but it's not quicker. You should check out your "grocery move" w/ the RAV to see how heavy/inconvenient the spare on the door is for you. Hope this helps.
Thanks for the height assessment. How is the legroom for you? My son has extremely long legs!
I sat in an EX and felt that the height was OK, but it felt more 'closed in' because of the moonroof. I am pretty tall myself. My husband is about the same height but he 'sits' shorter than I do and didn't see a difference.
I would love to consider the EX because of the extra stuff you get on it, but the price for that model is a little too high for us. So we are looking at the LX.
I would buy another Camry in a New York minute except for the fact that, being older, I have a harder time getting into cars that sit lower. But I do think they have cheapened the seats over the years. My 1992 Camry was a dream! We did drive a 2007 Camry on vacation and liked it a lot.
You should check out your "grocery move" w/ the RAV to see how heavy/inconvenient the spare on the door is for you.
"Grocery Move" is a great way to put it!! I didn't try it with a load of groceries, just empty-handed. But, you are right, the door is heavy with the tire. My hubby worries about it being stolen, and someone else mentioned higher costs for a rear-end incident. Good things to think about.
...this CRV is simple to control, handles very well, has plenty of interior space, more room in the back seat for people and child car seats.
I did notice that there was more room in the back of the CRV, or at least it seemed like it, when I test drove the two cars. That is an important consideration for me. My kids have been spoiled by the captain's chairs in the Sienna, so it would be a good transition.
okay, this weekend, i sat parked on my driveway with the AC running. yes, i observed the clamping on/off cycling and, yes, all my cars do that...however, that's not the behavior i was talking about. my complaint is the air will blow really cold most of the time, but then, for a few seconds, the air will not be blowing cold and then resume blowing really cold again and repeating over and over again REGARDLESS of whether the compressor is engaged (clamped) or not. my other cars blow cold all the time. anyway, i'll just bring this to the attention of the service dept when i bring it in for my next service.
i have an '07 and my sister has the previous generation one and, boy, lemme tell ya, there is quite a difference. honda did a good job here reducing the racket.
We also had a '92 Camry. Yesiree, cheapen the seats they have.
As to leg room, I wear a 34" pant length, if that helps, and find the leg room fine.
If you're going for the LX model, headroom shouldn't be an issue at all. The sun/moonroof is a waste of money and, yes, reduces interior space. But since I wanted leather seats and a couple other things, we had no choice. The best use for it I've found is when parking on a warm day. It will exhaust hot air from the car.
Bottom line, the CR-V delivers a very nice car. Not perfect, but it isn't priced for perfection. Good luck.
Just one more small thing to bring up: this is the 2007 CRV site. If you were to run this on the CRV vs rav 4 vs forester subject and then toyota buyers saw this, there may be a more diversified(not one-sided) response.
For a more diversified response, how about the whole country? The 07 CRV is the current best selling SUV in the U.S., displacing the long time best seller Ford Explorer. Almost 65,000 sold so far.
True, but Ford is dividing sales between more similar models - Escape, Edge, Explorer, and Freestyle. All of them offer AWD and can be had in the $20s.
Still, an amazing feat by Honda, especially considering they also sell the Element (and for less).
Just one more small thing to bring up: this is the 2007 CRV site. If you were to run this on the CRV vs rav 4 vs forester subject and then toyota buyers saw this, there may be a more diversified(not one-sided) response.
This is very true, and I think I will try that and see what happens. Certainly, one would probably get a totally different take on things even within the Toyota forums. We have had Toyotas for so long now, that going back to Honda after 20 years will sort of be a new experience, if we choose the CRV. And I don't want to mention the brief and disastrous experience in between, with a 1995 Windstar that died on us while on vacation. But I wasn't going to mention that...
I looked at the Forester at the Auto Show earlier this spring, and didn't like it nearly as much as I liked the RAV4 and the CRV, plus the price was higher.
Get the Rav 4 If you buy the Honda, you will spend more on parts than the car! Honda Parts cost more than parts for the Space Shuttle!! The Rav 4 is a better car and MUCH cheaper to keep up!
"Grocery Move" is a great way to put it!! I didn't try it with a load of groceries, just empty-handed. But, you are right, the door is heavy with the tire. My hubby worries about it being stolen, and someone else mentioned higher costs for a rear-end incident. Good things to think about.
One thing I have noticed with cars that have tires outside, including old CRV's, the case that covers it are off colored (probably cause they damaged it and couldn't match the color), the hard case was dinged, the casing was scratched or the tire no longer had a case.
I can so see myself constantly backing into that stupid thing just cause
A little more background please? I've got a 12 year old Honda and have never found parts to be unreasonably priced (or any different than Nissan's).
It was only until my Honda reached 130,000 miles did I ever need a part in the first place, anyway!
Also, to keep your post from looking completely biased, maybe you can share WHY you feel the RAV4 to be a better car, to help out our friend 'farmingrocks.'
Get the Rav 4 If you buy the Honda, you will spend more on parts than the car! Honda Parts cost more than parts for the Space Shuttle!! The Rav 4 is a better car and MUCH cheaper to keep up!
Good luck CK
Do you have any side by side comparison of parts costs? I never owned a Toyota, and probably never will. Who wants o drive a washing machine with steering wheel anyway?
But, I have an 83 Honda bike, an 88 Honda car and a 2005 CR-V (this is just to show that I know what I am talking about, since I maintain my vehicles, and know first hand how much parts cost) I get my parts from a number of on-line Honda dealers. I get OEM parts for less than what they charge at AutoZone for generics. One of those dealers is actually sponsoring this board... H and A AccessoriesI used to get parts from Fair Honda Parts but they decided not to do online business. Now, I get parts from Honda Acura World. It just happens that when I lived in CT Fair Honda was in Danbury, and I could pick up my parts in person. Now, that I live in Buffalo, Honda Acura world is only 10 miles away.
Ford sponsored one of those 90 day studies. The results showed Toyota, Nissan, and Ford having roughly the same number of problems per vehicle. The stand-out in the study was Honda with a clear advantage over the others.
Take it for what it's worth. There are many such studies and the results they provide vary somewhat.
Hope we can also expect this, and with an automatic.
* *
Why ruin a great engine with a slush box?
So far, Honda has not been able to produce an automatic that can withstand the torque of a diesel. Besides, why not drive stick and enjoy all the benfits it provides without any side effects of automatic?
As it is, the 2.4 liter engine's potential is greatly diminished by the automatic. If you drive a stick CR-V and auto CR-V side by side, you won't ever want to drive auto CR-V.
" As it is, the 2.4 liter engine's potential is greatly diminished by the automatic. If you drive a stick CR-V and auto CR-V side by side, you won't ever want to drive auto CR-V."
I have driven both, and prefer the automatic. The only way I would get a stick is if that is the only option for the diesel. Just too much traffic and hills here in LA.
If Mercedes, BMW, etc. can mate an AT to a diesel, I suspect Honda can find a way as well.
I have driven both, and prefer the automatic. The only way I would get a stick is if that is the only option for the diesel. Just too much traffic and hills here in LA.
If Mercedes, BMW, etc. can mate an AT to a diesel, I suspect Honda can find a way as well.
I have been driving stick for many years, living in NYC, Living in LA, commuting 60 miles in bumper to bumper, and none of my legs fell off. I find that driving stick in traffic is actually easier, since you don't have to step on the brake all the time. With stick, you can modulate your speed with just the throttle in a 5 mph bumper to bumper crawl. Occasionally you may have to clutch in and step on the brake, but for 90% of the time, if you keep enough buffer space, you just roll most of the way in stop and go. Next time you are stuck in traffic, observe big rigs, all they do is roll, they rarely step on the brakes.
Honda does not want to pay royalties for conevntional automatic tranny design. Hond automatic can not withstand the torque. If you remember, all tranny failures were in V6 powered automatic Hondas and Acuras.
Given Honda doesn't offer a manual with the gas engine, I doubt they'll offer one with a diesel.
You're talking about a niche-within-a-niche. Too small a sample of potential buyers.
Only 7% of people buy manuals, and probably an even smaller percent buy diesel. If you limit the target customer by offering both Honda will end up with 6 buyers.
Sad, but true. I'm sure we'll see an auto. Maybe both, just maybe, to squeeze out every last mpg.
I prefer automatic transmissions (especially in traffic), and Honda can engineer an automatic transmission to match a diesel, if they so desire.
I should hope that Honda has figured out their transmission problems by now, and BTW the engines in the Odyssey / Pilot / Ridgline have a lot of torque. And horsepower...
"'Sad, but true. I'm sure we'll see an auto. Maybe both, just maybe, to squeeze out every last mpg."
As I recall, the 2006 CR-V got better MPG from the Automatic? Or was it just that the RPMs were higher at speed with the MT? For some reason it had a higher final gear ratio.
I think that modern computer systems can match transmission to power (especially with 5 or 6 forward speeds available) quite well, optimizing both power and MPG.
However, I would not be surprised if the turbo did have a 6 speed transmission; that setup is what the UK version uses. It is a 2.2 turbo diesel. Since it is already prepared, this may be the first model to the States. :surprise:
BTW blueiedgod, a stick shift isn't some new discovery we all need to try. While it is true that sticks can/are more fun, under some conditions, they are a pain most of the time.
As large trucks creep along with their sticks, so do the buses, motor homes, and even CR-Vs with their automatics.
Look around at the baby boomers. Most were raised on sticks. Most now prefer automatics. I don't personally know anyone that prefers to drive a stick as their ONLY vehicle choice. This includes my sons, their friends, as well as my friends of all ages. With the exception of the guy that replaced his Harley with a Miata. As he put it, it is his toy. Of course his main drive is an automatic.
Heck I even traded my (Bought new) 78 Kubota farm tractor stick for one with hydrostatic drive.
There are better things to do, while driving, than to constantly be Perched At The Ready deciding if we need to shift, push in the clutch, and so forth.
I'm sure he will disagree but isn't the auto tranny considered an advancement in auto technology? Sseems to me it is as there is no more need to row through gears. Similar to power brakes, power steering, windshield wipers, et al?
Maybe he would prefer to drive a vehicle without all those features as that certainly must be "real" driving.
Of course all this would be after he washed his clothes on a rock and hung them in the sun to dry .
All valid points. However, driving a stick usually puts the driver much more in control and in tune with the surrounding conditions. I own both a stick and an auto. When I drive the auto, I feel like a mere spectator on the road. In a stick, I'm more of a participant.
Tips : I own 3 Ivtec's and my son has 2 old civic's of my and my dau. has our old 2000, they All have KNFilters in them and i run Royal Purple in them. The inside avg. milage display on the dash of the new cr-v , increase from 21.5 to 24.7 in 3 hrs. of driving with new Knfilter that i order directly from KN.., pn # 33-2377, was release May 18, receive it last sat. May 26, loosing the collar screw on air duct from air-box, going into air-instake then remove top of air-box, oringal air-filter has a thick side facing up, don't let that fool you.., the knfilter goes thick side faces down, also remove poitive post from battery, to reset computer before replacing filter. install new filter put on filter box, 5 metal clamps, put air duct back together, tighten screw clamp, put battery post back on, later have use radio code to resync your radio, then reset clock, the avg. milage will dip at first, then after 15 mins., you'll see it climb.., i send more info on royal purple... Ivetc3
Welcome to CarSpace Ivtec3 - the wet/dry filter issue pops up all the time, and lots of posters think the OEM paper filters are better than the aftermarket wet ones.
Here's one recent thread you may be interested in:
I'm sure he will disagree but isn't the auto tranny considered an advancement in auto technology? Sseems to me it is as there is no more need to row through gears.
It is an advancement in technology, but a manual these days is less about "need" and more about "wanting" to have an involving drive. To some, an automatic transmission is no different than an electric turn signal. To others, it is the difference in the car being fun to drive and an appliance.
I like the idea of a manual, but in traffic, I really want an automatic. A manual second car would be the perfect option for me!
How does driving a stick put the driver more in control?
You can be in any gear you see fit at any time you see fit. You can control the slip and take-up of the clutch to take off quicker, sprint through traffic, and handle corners better. With the automatic, you're at the mercy of the computer.
How does it put the driver more in tune with surrounding conditions?
You have to pay a lot more attention to your driving and anticipate maneuvers ahead of time when operating a clutch and a shifter in addition to steering, brake, and accelerator.
I had a KnFilter in my 92 Accord, and there WAS a differents, milage and power. I had the the KnFilter in car from 98 to i traded in for my 2005 Accord, the oil did'nt get any dirtier, there was'nt i would think more wear on the internal side of engine, never use oil, had 200k when i traded it in. And if anyone think the KnFilter will damage engine hears proof and go to there web site @knfilters.com, theres a video with a user that had a KnFilter in his truck for a million miles. I think if you more miles per gallon with the KnFilter, and I've seen with all my Honda's Buy It !
I understand what you are saying, but respectfully have another view!
With an auto, If there is a need to move out faster I give more throttle. If a lower gear is needed the auto will downshift just as quick or quicker as doing it with a clutch and stick. If I simply have to have a different gear (for my ego) than the computer selection, I can move the gear shift lever.
We should pay attention to our driving at all times. Watch for tail lights coming on ahead, stopped traffic ahead, and so forth. Operating a clutch and gear shift can add something else to concentrate on, when we could be using those brain cells concentrating on traffic!
Automatics keep getting better, so the big gap that once existing is pretty much gone, in some cases autos are quicker.
Look at the BMW M5.
And you don't have to go that high up the price scale, either.
Mazda hosted an event called Zoom Zoom Live, where people got to drive the Miata around a course. They had autos and manuals.
The autos were consistently quicker around the track. And if you think about it, more experience drivers would tend to choose the manual, so you can't say it was that the automatic drivers had more skill. The opposite is more likely, if you think about it.
Check their web page - K&N makes no general fuel economy claims. If you have a dirty air filter, any new one (paper, wet, whatever) should help your mpg. Save your money.
The RDX uses a tranny that is normally mated to the J series V6 engines. It'll handle the extra torque. I'm sure they can work it out with a diesel CR-V, as well.
Having written that, the development costs to make it happen would be considerable. The largest market for diesels is Europe and they do not demand automatics. So, while a manual diesel might be a niche within a niche here in the states, that is not true elsewhere.
This approach would likely add more weight to the vehicle. In order to get the diesel to corner and stop like a petrol CR-V, upgrades would need to be made to the suspension and brakes. (The RDX tips the scales close to 4,000 lbs and rides pretty rough.)
On the whole, I think offering an automatic is possible. But I wouldn't bet on it. I give it a 50/50 chance.
Comments
The RAV4 has more pickup
The RAV4 seats are uncomfortable
The CRV seats are nicer and more comfortable
The CRV ride is way more comfortable, more car-like than truck-like. I prefer car-like riding.
I then drove them again, and again, and again. I sat in the back and had my husband drive so I could see what it would be like for the kids. I liked the ride in the back in the CRV WAY MORE.
Hubby is tired of me obsessing on this, but it's a big decision for me, as we keep our cars a long time, and I am the one who will be living in it.
My hesitation at this point rests on these things:
I like a lot of the way the RAV4 is set up inside, except for the console - no room for my purse with a passenger in the other front seat.
I like the easier mechanism for folding the seats down in the RAV4, and they lay flatter.
I am tired of the hatch on my Sienna, and would be retaining the necessity of lifting up/pushing down with the CRV even though it is lighter.
Is the pickup in the RAV4 really better or am I just not used to Honda engines/trannies? I had an Accord 20 years ago and loved it, didn't have troubling merging onto the highway. The last time I drove the CRV, the one I drove seemed better in merging than the first time I drove one. So is it just my imagination? We are comparing 4 cylinder models, not the V6 in the RAV4. I really don't need a V6.
Honda dealers seem harder to work with, because they have the upper hand in the supply/demand arena. So many times we ended up buying Toyotas instead of Hondas because the dealers wouldn't act nice or couldn't get a car in a reasonable amount of time.
And finally (this is a nit-picky girl thing), I just really really love the RAV4 green color. Waiting to see the CRV green, but I don't think I am going to like it, and I also want gray interior, so I would have to go with my second choice, Glacier Blue.
I am very very close to choosing the CRV, though, because of the more car-like ride and the more comfortable seats.
Anyone have any comments about really tall high schoolers fitting into the driver's seat of the CRV? My son will be starting driver's ed this summer and he's concerned he won't fit. He's 6'2" and growing Haven't been able to get him inside one yet.
Also, my impressions are that the RAV4 has better visibility on the passenger's side; the CRV's little window at the end of the right side is completely obscured when someone is sitting in the right seat of the second row. Anyone have any comments on this?
I appreciate everyone's comments so far. It has helped tremendously.
Some people complain that the CR-V is underpowered. Not for me. It's 4cyl engine will let you know its working if you need to accelerate quickly, but at cruising speed it's as quiet as any other engine.
The CR-V is really just a tall station wagon that's suitable, in AWD mode, for foul weather driving.
My wife likes her hybrid Camry, but for any trips she wants to take the CR-V because it's more comfortable. Good luck.
The 4 cylinder rav has 4 speed transmission, while the CRV has 5 speed. The seats in the CRV don't fold flat so you do lose that extra flat space , which we could have used yesterday buying plants and stuff. I haven'r let my wife drive it yet because I think she would trade me her TL because this CRV is simple to control, handles very well, has plenty of interior space, more room in the back seat for people and child car seats.
However, nothing is forever. Even if you get the crv and don't like it after a year, it could probably be sold for a very small loss.
I sat in an EX and felt that the height was OK, but it felt more 'closed in' because of the moonroof. I am pretty tall myself. My husband is about the same height but he 'sits' shorter than I do and didn't see a difference.
I would love to consider the EX because of the extra stuff you get on it, but the price for that model is a little too high for us. So we are looking at the LX.
I would buy another Camry in a New York minute except for the fact that, being older, I have a harder time getting into cars that sit lower. But I do think they have cheapened the seats over the years. My 1992 Camry was a dream! We did drive a 2007 Camry on vacation and liked it a lot.
"Grocery Move" is a great way to put it!! I didn't try it with a load of groceries, just empty-handed. But, you are right, the door is heavy with the tire. My hubby worries about it being stolen, and someone else mentioned higher costs for a rear-end incident. Good things to think about.
I did notice that there was more room in the back of the CRV, or at least it seemed like it, when I test drove the two cars. That is an important consideration for me. My kids have been spoiled by the captain's chairs in the Sienna, so it would be a good transition.
Thanks for affirming my search process idiosyncracies!! Drives my husband nuts, but it works for me, even though sometimes I get overly confused.
As to leg room, I wear a 34" pant length, if that helps, and find the leg room fine.
If you're going for the LX model, headroom shouldn't be an issue at all. The sun/moonroof is a waste of money and, yes, reduces interior space. But since I wanted leather seats and a couple other things, we had no choice. The best use for it I've found is when parking on a warm day. It will exhaust hot air from the car.
Bottom line, the CR-V delivers a very nice car. Not perfect, but it isn't priced for perfection. Good luck.
this is the 2007 CRV site. If you were to run this on the CRV vs rav 4 vs forester subject and then toyota buyers saw this, there may be a more diversified(not one-sided) response.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/4911C6F00748BEA4862572D9- 004D2D8D?OpenDocument
Still, an amazing feat by Honda, especially considering they also sell the Element (and for less).
this is the 2007 CRV site. If you were to run this on the CRV vs rav 4 vs forester subject and then toyota buyers saw this, there may be a more diversified(not one-sided) response.
This is very true, and I think I will try that and see what happens. Certainly, one would probably get a totally different take on things even within the Toyota forums. We have had Toyotas for so long now, that going back to Honda after 20 years will sort of be a new experience, if we choose the CRV. And I don't want to mention the brief and disastrous experience in between, with a 1995 Windstar that died on us while on vacation. But I wasn't going to mention that...
I looked at the Forester at the Auto Show earlier this spring, and didn't like it nearly as much as I liked the RAV4 and the CRV, plus the price was higher.
Good luck CK
"Grocery Move" is a great way to put it!! I didn't try it with a load of groceries, just empty-handed. But, you are right, the door is heavy with the tire. My hubby worries about it being stolen, and someone else mentioned higher costs for a rear-end incident. Good things to think about.
One thing I have noticed with cars that have tires outside, including old CRV's, the case that covers it are off colored (probably cause they damaged it and couldn't match the color), the hard case was dinged, the casing was scratched or the tire no longer had a case.
I can so see myself constantly backing into that stupid thing just cause
It was only until my Honda reached 130,000 miles did I ever need a part in the first place, anyway!
Also, to keep your post from looking completely biased, maybe you can share WHY you feel the RAV4 to be a better car, to help out our friend 'farmingrocks.'
Good luck CK
Do you have any side by side comparison of parts costs? I never owned a Toyota, and probably never will. Who wants o drive a washing machine with steering wheel anyway?
But, I have an 83 Honda bike, an 88 Honda car and a 2005 CR-V (this is just to show that I know what I am talking about, since I maintain my vehicles, and know first hand how much parts cost) I get my parts from a number of on-line Honda dealers. I get OEM parts for less than what they charge at AutoZone for generics. One of those dealers is actually sponsoring this board... H and A AccessoriesI used to get parts from Fair Honda Parts but they decided not to do online business. Now, I get parts from Honda Acura World. It just happens that when I lived in CT Fair Honda was in Danbury, and I could pick up my parts in person. Now, that I live in Buffalo, Honda Acura world is only 10 miles away.
Your turn...
Troll? That looks like a hedgehog! :confuse:
Take it for what it's worth. There are many such studies and the results they provide vary somewhat.
2008 Honda CR-V Diesel i-CDTi
See story:
http://www.wheels24.co.za/Wheels24/NewModels/0,,1369-1374_2120740,00.html
Hope we can also expect this, and with an automatic.
* *
2008 Honda CR-V Diesel i-CDTi
See story:
http://www.wheels24.co.za/Wheels24/NewModels/0,,1369-1374_2120740,00.html
Hope we can also expect this, and with an automatic.
* *
Why ruin a great engine with a slush box?
So far, Honda has not been able to produce an automatic that can withstand the torque of a diesel. Besides, why not drive stick and enjoy all the benfits it provides without any side effects of automatic?
As it is, the 2.4 liter engine's potential is greatly diminished by the automatic. If you drive a stick CR-V and auto CR-V side by side, you won't ever want to drive auto CR-V.
I have driven both, and prefer the automatic. The only way I would get a stick is if that is the only option for the diesel. Just too much traffic and hills here in LA.
If Mercedes, BMW, etc. can mate an AT to a diesel, I suspect Honda can find a way as well.
If Mercedes, BMW, etc. can mate an AT to a diesel, I suspect Honda can find a way as well.
I have been driving stick for many years, living in NYC, Living in LA, commuting 60 miles in bumper to bumper, and none of my legs fell off. I find that driving stick in traffic is actually easier, since you don't have to step on the brake all the time. With stick, you can modulate your speed with just the throttle in a 5 mph bumper to bumper crawl. Occasionally you may have to clutch in and step on the brake, but for 90% of the time, if you keep enough buffer space, you just roll most of the way in stop and go. Next time you are stuck in traffic, observe big rigs, all they do is roll, they rarely step on the brakes.
Honda does not want to pay royalties for conevntional automatic tranny design. Hond automatic can not withstand the torque. If you remember, all tranny failures were in V6 powered automatic Hondas and Acuras.
You're talking about a niche-within-a-niche. Too small a sample of potential buyers.
Only 7% of people buy manuals, and probably an even smaller percent buy diesel. If you limit the target customer by offering both Honda will end up with 6 buyers.
Sad, but true. I'm sure we'll see an auto. Maybe both, just maybe, to squeeze out every last mpg.
I prefer automatic transmissions (especially in traffic), and Honda can engineer an automatic transmission to match a diesel, if they so desire.
I should hope that Honda has figured out their transmission problems by now, and BTW the engines in the Odyssey / Pilot / Ridgline have a lot of torque. And horsepower...
As I recall, the 2006 CR-V got better MPG from the Automatic? Or was it just that the RPMs were higher at speed with the MT? For some reason it had a higher final gear ratio.
I think that modern computer systems can match transmission to power (especially with 5 or 6 forward speeds available) quite well, optimizing both power and MPG.
However, I would not be surprised if the turbo did have a 6 speed transmission; that setup is what the UK version uses. It is a 2.2 turbo diesel. Since it is already prepared, this may be the first model to the States. :surprise:
Look at the Civic - the autos get better mileage.
BTW blueiedgod, a stick shift isn't some new discovery we all need to try. While it is true that sticks can/are more fun, under some conditions, they are a pain most of the time.
As large trucks creep along with their sticks, so do the buses, motor homes, and even CR-Vs with their automatics.
Look around at the baby boomers. Most were raised on sticks. Most now prefer automatics. I don't personally know anyone that prefers to drive a stick as their ONLY vehicle choice. This includes my sons, their friends, as well as my friends of all ages. With the exception of the guy that replaced his Harley with a Miata. As he put it, it is his toy. Of course his main drive is an automatic.
Heck I even traded my (Bought new) 78 Kubota farm tractor stick for one with hydrostatic drive.
There are better things to do, while driving, than to constantly be Perched At The Ready deciding if we need to shift, push in the clutch, and so forth.
Kip
Maybe he would prefer to drive a vehicle without all those features as that certainly must be "real" driving.
Of course all this would be after he washed his clothes on a rock and hung them in the sun to dry
Here's one recent thread you may be interested in:
Honda Pilot Real World MPG
How does driving a stick put the driver more in control?
How does it put the driver more in tune with surrounding conditions?
Thanks,
Kip
The Future Of The Manual Transmission
Feel free to kick it around in here a bit, but for the real nitty-gritty, you really need to skim that discussion.
It is an advancement in technology, but a manual these days is less about "need" and more about "wanting" to have an involving drive. To some, an automatic transmission is no different than an electric turn signal. To others, it is the difference in the car being fun to drive and an appliance.
I like the idea of a manual, but in traffic, I really want an automatic. A manual second car would be the perfect option for me!
You can be in any gear you see fit at any time you see fit. You can control the slip and take-up of the clutch to take off quicker, sprint through traffic, and handle corners better. With the automatic, you're at the mercy of the computer.
How does it put the driver more in tune with surrounding conditions?
You have to pay a lot more attention to your driving and anticipate maneuvers ahead of time when operating a clutch and a shifter in addition to steering, brake, and accelerator.
With an auto, If there is a need to move out faster I give more throttle. If a lower gear is needed the auto will downshift just as quick or quicker as doing it with a clutch and stick. If I simply have to have a different gear (for my ego) than the computer selection, I can move the gear shift lever.
We should pay attention to our driving at all times. Watch for tail lights coming on ahead, stopped traffic ahead, and so forth. Operating a clutch and gear shift can add something else to concentrate on, when we could be using those brain cells concentrating on traffic!
Sticks are more fun!
Just another view!
Thanks,
Kip
Look at the BMW M5.
And you don't have to go that high up the price scale, either.
Mazda hosted an event called Zoom Zoom Live, where people got to drive the Miata around a course. They had autos and manuals.
The autos were consistently quicker around the track. And if you think about it, more experience drivers would tend to choose the manual, so you can't say it was that the automatic drivers had more skill. The opposite is more likely, if you think about it.
It surprised me.
Having written that, the development costs to make it happen would be considerable. The largest market for diesels is Europe and they do not demand automatics. So, while a manual diesel might be a niche within a niche here in the states, that is not true elsewhere.
This approach would likely add more weight to the vehicle. In order to get the diesel to corner and stop like a petrol CR-V, upgrades would need to be made to the suspension and brakes. (The RDX tips the scales close to 4,000 lbs and rides pretty rough.)
On the whole, I think offering an automatic is possible. But I wouldn't bet on it. I give it a 50/50 chance.