Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2001 - 2006 Honda CR-Vs



  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    As long as we're passing annecdotes... A poster at the CR-V IX has 184+K on his 97. Only work done is a replaced CV boot (damaged by a corn stalk). He's an Agricultural Consultant and tows a trailered ATV through the fields about 25% of the time. He gave up a Jeep Cherokee for the CR-V and has never looked back.

    My own CR-V has 50K and zero problems. I did have to replace a set of wiper blades. I don't expect everyone to be so lucky, though.
  • Juice is right, to be fair you'd have to compare a 1987 Subaru vs. a 1987 Honda. The problem is, you'd have to find such a Subie first; most of 'em rusted out long ago. Plenty of '87 Hondas around though... ;)
  • Ateixeira, I agree that comparing the '87 Subaru to the '93 Honda isn't a fair comparison.

    To continue the unfair comparison, I've been stuck in snow twice in the Honda, and just once in the Subaru. In the Honda, both times were heavy spring snowstorms on unplowed roads within walking distance of home. Have never owned snowtires, as snow cover usually doesn't last long in Colorado Springs. One time snowtires probably would have made the difference; the other time even some big 4WD vehicles were getting stuck. The one time in the Subaru I pulled off a dirt road with hardpacked snow to park for some backcountry skiing. The snow I pulled into was softer and deeper than I expected, so had to have a little help to get out.

    I'm confident that both manufacturers have improved considerably since '87 and '93.

    The rear seat does matter on my choice for when my parents or my wife's parents come to visit. Cargo volume is also a slight consideration, and being able to put a bike upright in the back would be a big plus.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Wife's '01 Forester has 21K, not 2K.

  • Hey all. I'm new to this board and to the CR-V. I'm picking up my silver EX tomorrow night. I paid MSRP but my 1993 Mazda flunked inspection so I had to move now - couldn't wait for next year. Not too many 2002 CR-V's in St. Louis - they are going off the lot as soon as they hit town

    . I researched more than I care to think and test drove several SUV's. Hard to make a decision - my wife told me I was worse than a woman when it came time to decide. All I knew was I had to get away from the family sedan look:)

    In the end, once I decided to go with a smaller SUV, Honda's reliability and efficiency got me. I couldn't take the gear shift in the Escape/Tribute and the Santa Fe was too new. I could have gotten a great deal on an Xterra (only $2500 more) but it just didn't seem too well put together. My 14 year old daughter loved the design/exterior of the Xterra but when we drove the Honda, she knew (despite her years) that it was the much better vehicle. I went with my head and not my heart (I liked the Xterra's looks too) but I have to tell you every time I see the new 2002 CR-V's, I find the look growing on me.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Actually, one of my family's Soobs was an '87 wagon. The tranny was the biggest problem, but it did rust pretty badly. We bought it new. My father's '86 Accord ran much better and longer. We got it secondhand. This was the car that attracted me to Hondas. It also had rust problems, but to a much lesser degree. The paint was pretty badly faded, though.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Congrats Mchmike!! Post pics when you have some!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru uses double-galvandized steel today, so the days of rust are long gone. Since 1993, IIRC.

    But think about it - if you have to go back two decades to a completely unrelated model (era, even) to find a significant flaw in a Subaru, that alone ought to sell you on a Forester.

    Saw a CR-V in person for the first time, finally. I was in my Miata so it seemed even taller than it is. Taller and more substantial than the first generation, yet a lot more playful looking. I like the taillights now, more Volvo and less Lumina APV, because there is no sheet metal where the D-pillar should be. The headlights are HUGE. Big eyes on that thing, but they give it character. Wheels do look wimpy, it deserves an upgrade option. A lot more presence on the road. Thumbs up.

  • Now that you have the right tire pressure in your new V, I'm sure the ride is not bumpy. But what about road noise? What effect, if any, does tire pressure have on road noise? I'm assuming that the road noise level is still high. Please clarify, thanks!
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    Do I detect a positive comment coming from you regarding Volvo styling? ;) I always thought you didn't care for their looks...

  • I had an '86 Subaru 4wd GL wagon. I thought it was the last of the carb models, but what do I know. It never failed to start or left me on the side of the road, but it took some fiddling to keep it running right: exhaust parts mostly and CV boots once. Considering I used it for surf fishing, and floated it in salt water at least 6 times, the rust amounted to two small spots on the rear fenders ----- until the front subframes rusted through after 14 years. Still got $400 for it without advertising it.

    I think the mid-80s Hondas were 'better' or less clunky anyway.

    Wanna talk about my the rust on my 1975 Datsun B210. Me either.

    Now I have an '02 Moonroof, I mean ForesterSPremLeatheretc. Very nice. The AWD is a trip the way it let's me throw the car around and recover by using more gas pedal. I haven't figured out how it transfers power to the rear axle before the front wheels slip(weight sensors on the axles?), but I love the result. It is definitely NOT an '86 Subaru. It also weighs nearly 900 pounds more.

    My cousin just bought her CRV when the lease ran out. This is longest she ever kept a car. Very good trouble free car.

    Another person I know just bought an '02 CRV last week for MSRP and it too is very nice. I'd put larger wheels on it, but then again, I'm going back out on the beach.

    In conclusion, thank goodness, I don't know that I'd say the CRV is better (because the Forester's sunroof is bigger) but it certainly isn't any worse.

  • zopszops Posts: 49
    I've never been big on extended warranties, especially on Japanese cars. I purchased it on my 91 Corolla and never had to use it. Purchased it on my 97 Honda Accord and still haven't had anything happen although 2 more years to go.
    Because this is a totally new CRV design, some have recommende to me to buy the 7/100K extended.
  • I looked long and hard at both the Forester and 'V back in '99 when I bought my EX. Both are great vehicles IMO and both fit similar niches in the market. But there are enough differences between the two to make one a better choice for a particular need. And your personal needs are what are most important to you. If someone is considering either of these vehicles and picks one of them, I don't see how they could make a bad decision either way.

    Sure, you could argue the merits of full time AWD vs. automatic part time systems for days. But don't discount one vehicle because it doesn't have a particular feature of another. Can't live without LSD, buy a Forester S. Does that make the L a bad choice for someone else because it doesn't have one? The CR-V? No. It all depends on your needs.
    If you don't like a particluar vehicle, don't buy it. There are plenty of choices available.
    Biased or ignorant bashing doesn't make anyone look good.
  • Put the money on some self installed extra for your new crv. When I purchased in March 97 the first CRV. The dealer, offer the extended warrantee a 50% off list, I told him, I buy honda's to avoid problems, and I don't pay up front for problems that are not going to happen!
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Congrats, hcmmike and welcome to the boards!

    After you bring your new pride and joy home, don't forget to stop in often and share your experiences with us!

  • tomsrtomsr Posts: 325
    I'll stick with HONDA primarily because service
    is easier to find and they don't mix HONDA service
    with other makes so the mechanics can be experts.
    I work in a service industry (copiers)so I know the pitfalls of trying to service too many brands.
    I had a 96 Outback that had a recall and I waited 5 hours before the service manager says they don't have the part.This dealer handled Chrysler.
    Hyundai,and Subaru.
  • Apparently the seatbelt fix kits haven't hit the Canadian Honda dealers yet. I have an agreement to buy a LX from a dealer at around 4% over cost. Anyway, he's unable to deliver yet as they haven't received the recall fix kits from Honda Canada. Anyone else having this experience???

    Patiently waiting...
  • Marky777 -- A dealer here in Ottawa told me that all the vehicles arriving had already had the seat belt problem fixed. Of course, they may not know what is really happening, but I would like to think they do.

    Do you mind sharing what you paid for the vehicle, before delivery, taxes and accessories? I have been trying to figure out if Canadian dealers are going below MSRP or not, and if so, how much of a discount they are giving.
  • thornthorn Posts: 91
    I saw a show on DirecTV, I believe on Speedvision. It seemed to be one of their one manufacturer showcases.

    This was a Subaru showcase. In it a Subaru exec - I believe it was a Subaru exec - asserted that the Forester created its class and that the original CR-V was essentially a rip-off.

    I don't know if that person was a liar or a fool but from what I researched on the internet, it confirmed my memory, i.e., that the original CR-V predated the Forester.

    Furthermore, Honda marketed an AWD tall wagon from 1984 to the early 1990's.

    btw, according to the C&D the CR-V does 0-60 in @8.4. I doubt the Forester can match that.

    ...The second-gen CR-V scoots to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds. That's a second quicker than its forebear and comfortably below the 9.9-second average we logged among those 11 automatic Lilliputian utes last March. It's also 1.8 seconds quicker than an automatic Toyota RAV4, the vehicle that 28.3 percent of CR-V buyers "cross-shop" first. Still, the major payoff is this Honda's newfound perkiness for the first couple of seconds in each of the lower gears, where it's now way happier to lunge and squirt its way into holes in traffic...

    From anecdotal experience Hondas generally appear to get better than their EPA ratings while Subarus seem to do worse. I would therefore expect that the faster CR-V would actually get better real-world mileage, driver dependent.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Bob: I don't think Honda minds being compared with a luxury make like Volvo (which still have too much cladding).

    Tom: while most dealers are multi-brand outlets, they do have Subaru-specific teams of mechanics at most dealerships. You just got awful service, plain and simple.

    But if you think 5 hours wait for parts is bad, ask 2002 CR-V owners about how long it took to fix their seat belts.

    Thorn: EPA ratings for my Forester are 21/27, but I'm averaging above 25mpg for the 2 years that I've been charting mileage. My worst ever was 20.7mpg driving on the beach every day for a week, and my best exceeded 30mpg, far better than the EPA figures. Typically they do not do worse than the EPA figures unless you're driving a WRX all-out on a track.

    I'd like to see a CR-V auto compared to a group of autos, for apples-to-apples. Motorweek and the Washington Post both reached 60 in 9.1 seconds in a Forester. Perhaps the boxer engine is better suited to an auto, while the CR-V's iV-TEC is happier with a manual?

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    needs to be updated. It was created for the '01 MY.

  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    Well, I think he's correct about the current Soob not matching the C&D 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds. But anything around 9.0 to 9.5 is going to be good enough for one of these vehicles.

    FWIW, with a 5 speed transmission, the 146 hp CR-V has been timed at 8.6 (MT), 8.9 (Edmunds), and 9.1 seconds (I forget the source).

    Originally, one of the Forester's biggest selling points was that it offered more power than the CR-V or RAV4. I doubt that Subaru will allow the Forester to lose that advantage. The trouble is, there are plenty of more powerful vehicles on the market. Having power is no longer unique. Having gobs more power would be unique, but very few people need a rocket ship station wagon. Especially since Soob already offers one in the WRX. IMHO, they need to take a different direction with the new Forester.

    The EPA numbers seem accurate for the AT CR-V. The only anecdotal evidence to the contrary has been for the 5 speed, which seems to average 22-26 rather than the 22-25. I myself average 25+ and have a range similar to what Juice is getting in his Forester.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Actually, C&D has never tested a manual with the Phase II engine. The earlier DOHC Phase I ranged from 8.9 to 9.5 seconds with a manual, but the newer engine has more peak torque and a broader torque curve. They one in the Lilliputian test was an automatic (Phase II), and it did show an improvement in acceleration with the new engine.

    Forester still has the most power and torque for a 4 banger (and for vehicles with 20+ mpg EPA city), but I agree the V6 competition has put on the pressure and more power would be welcome. The 2003 Forester will arrive next summer and the 2004 Forester is rumored to get turbo power.

    We just found out the wife is pregnant again, so we'll be cross shopping the new CR-V with the 2003 Forester, the Highlander, along with a few minivans and sport sedans.

  • crviccrvic Posts: 37
    I commute 85 miles round trip on the interstate going 70-75 most of the time (cruise control almost all the wasy). With the '98 V I averaged 23-23.9 miles and with the '02 I'm getting 22-24. Should I expect the mpg to get better as the engine is broken in?

    What do you all think?
  • artdechoartdecho Posts: 337
    Truck Trends (Jan.) has a 4 way comparison between the RAV-4, new CR-V, the Freelander (their fave) and the Escape. Don't recall the times but both the RAV & RV came out on top in the acceleration tests, despite the fact that the Escape & Freelander were both V6's. article is not yet available online ( so you'll have to browse your local mag. rack.
  • thornthorn Posts: 91
    re: needs to be updated. It was created for the '01 MY.

    Certainly. But the Subaru fool/prevaricator was just as wrong when it was made as he is now. The Forester created nothing - it lagged the market and none too successfully.

    As Acura proved with the MDX and Honda with its Odyssey, if you're late to market it's better to be the best. The Forester was the former, not anywhere near the latter.

    Honda will introduce another new SUV in January for sale later in 2002:

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    MT's TOY comparo included 2002 CRV with automatic transmission. It did 0-60 in 8.9s. So one can assume that CRV could do 0-60 in low 8 seconds with manual and about 9 seconds with automatic.

    Some other 'trucks' tested,
    Liberty V6 (0-60: 10.0s)
    Freelander V6 (0-60: 10.5s)
    Xterrar Supercharged (0-60: 8.8s)

    They also mention that none of the vehicles considered got stuck in any of their off-road excursions unlike yester-year experiences.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    as a "brand" is moving towards a performance image. The WRX is just the first of several high-performance vehicles that Subaru will offer here. There's a Forester turbo that's been confirmed for MY04, and there's going to be an all-new Legacy GT turbo for MY05. I think the Forester will be positioned as a "performance alternative" to other SUVs.

  • inkyinky Posts: 370
    I still see many paying MSRP or near. If you have the time--Mark Roberts Honda sells CRVs at $316 over invoice every day every week. Only charge is $49 Doc fee. Dealer in Bartlesville, OK. Check out pricing on WEB site and call my salesman John Page at 1-800-375-less if interested. No $316 over on Odysseys--shoot!!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    thorn: You must be kidding.

    The Forester created new sales for Subaru, with growth every single year since its launch, while needing no rebates. Better yet, it didn't cannabalize sales from the Outback, whose sales also grew, instead most were conquest sales. Keeping in mind Subaru is a small, niche manufacturer, the Forester was a total home run any way you look at it.

    Subaru was the first to put 4WD in a passenger car platform, way back in 1973, and the Outback started the crossover craze (followed by the RAV4). The CR-V and Forester were late comers, yes, but Subaru was still the pioneer here.

    As to being the best, Forester sat at the top of the Consumer Reports ratings for years. It also won a C&D comparo, and knocked the CR-V out of the top spot in the JD Power APEAL category. Many in the media disagree with you.

    beatfarmer was dead-on.

Sign In or Register to comment.