Robmarch, Bamacar ... thanks for correcting my math on that mileage deal. I still can't figure out how I came up with 111 mi. for 100 km -- too early in the AM for my calculator, I guess
Well, I really do not think we have to be this harsh to Honda. This is just a common practice in the car industry for now. The rear gate/door has never been a structure element. It just can not take any impact from the spare tire. The problem can be easily corrected by adding a structure element, such as a beam, to the tire mounting point. Unfortunately, Honda is not doing it, Toyota is not doing it, nobody is doing it! In other words, it is an industry-wide issue, not just a CRV issue.
As for the "sacrificing the car structure to protect the passenagers" talk from Land Rover. This is all B.S.! It is only a minor 5MPH collision. If the car body can be easily gone at 5MPH, what will protect you in a 25MPH collision on highway?
I just got back from Nova scotia where I spent 9 days, made 4000 Km (i live in montreal)
I got a consistent 8.4 L/ 100 Km during my trip but due to the roads there and in between I was only driving at about 90Km/hr most of the time (nonetheless it was in the hills) we were 2 occupants + the back was full of our things.
All in all I am amazed of the fuel economy for a 4wd (well not really) mini(medium)-suv. And should i say it i was very happy with the pep of the four banger
25MPH collision is different from driving at 25MPH. Mmm... probably you are one of the very few who never step on the brake on highway, even when your car are about to hit someone? Thanks God that you live in Canada! j/k
Now I know why that non-bumper underneath the spare tire didn't look quite right to me. And this just when I thought the CR-V was the vehicle for me. Anyway ...
It doesn't matter how careful you are about backing up. Your CR-V can get hit while parked. Then if you can't nail the person who hit you, you have to file a claim against your own insurance. The higher the repair bill is, the more likely your insurance premiums will go up.
The spare tire belongs where it is. Ask the folks who drove the old cherokee how much room the spare took up mounted to the side of the cargo area. A donut in the well is not the answer either. This is more BS from the insurance industry, AKA the poor persons losing proposition. Just ask the folks in TX who are trying to get reasonable house insurance while the insurance companies are crying that they are losing money in the TX market. For the folks who think the damage is unacceptable, sure more bumper in the back would be nice, but anyone can design a test that will overcome any safety mechanism the engineers can come up with. Think of the numerous head up the [non-permissible content removed] things folks regularly do with the vehicles while driving and then design a test to incorporate such stupidity. (You know who you are, those who need a vehicle that can withstand backing up into a pole you can't see because you're not looking. God forbid a child wanders out behind your vehicle, or anywhere outside the house when you're on the road). Oh Magoo, you've done it again... Slugline and co., I'm with you, I want one on the hood and one on the roof, just in case. I drive through a lot of debris on the road, and I wonder why. Slipped into the Nomex flight suit, flame on!
I agree that it is the bumber length that is the problem, not th wheel on the door. Stick the bumber out another 3-4" or whatever, reinforce it with foam, and it should perform like the Suby. I saw the video of the crashes (5 mph not 25), and it is hard to believe the damage averaged 6000+.
I am interested in getting an EX model. Two questions.... First, does anyone know of any dealers in either Northern or central Calif that are selling EX's below MSRP? Second, can you buy a bike rack for 3 bikes for the EX?
An idea I have has not been addressed.Use a flat mounted spare as a bumper.A compartment in the rear with access through a door which serves as a bumper would allow the tire to be a shock absorber. This would require the compartment to be sturdy enough to take a 5 mph blow.The old VW beetle used the spare in the front as a cushion in case of an accident.Many years ago the Germans were the leaders in making practical safe cars.That may be true now but they are not affordable for the working masses.Anyhow backing into a pole is not real world.Getting rear ended at 30+ mph is,so that's the test that should be done.
Don't know if you have them there or not, but I used the Costco car buying service - paid 5% over invoice, no haggling for an EX auto. Not too bad I thought.
I just tried the Costco car buying service online and they stated that the CRV-EX does not currently feature the Costco discount pricing? Did you buy a 2002 CRV EX through Costco?
I was just wondering what everyone is paying for their CRV's? My main concern is paying under MSRP. I live in Northern California and was wondering if it is necessary to pay MSRP due to the so called "demand." I will look into the Costco car buying service, what was the process like falcon74?
When I checked Costco a few minutes ago, they stated that they didn't have any discounted pricing on the CRV to offer. I know of a few dealers selling at MSRP but I have not found anyone selling below MSRP yet.
I have a 2001 CRV EX and have had a knocking sound come from the right rear tailgate area when going over a bumpy road. At first I thought it might be due to the spare tire not being on securely but it was. I was able to duplicate this sound at the dealer by pulling a little bit on the spare tire. They lubed the tailgate door hinges and that seemed to work only for a few weeks. Any clues or perhaps has there been any service bulletins about this? Thanks.
What is it with you and the warranty? You posted the same drivel over on the Pilot forum.
If you back into a pole, the warranty's not going to cover it, and most likely, neither will your insurance. If someone rear ends you, the warranty still won't apply, you'd have to take that up with the insurance company.
Hope everyone (in the U.S.A.) had a great holiday and used their day off to wash their 'V BTW, I posted my cogent (as usual ) thoughts about the bumper thing over on another forum, but I'm too lazy to repost them. To sum up, I'm primarily concerned about crash tests as they relate to my family's safety, and the CR-V is the first SUV EVER tested to achieve 5 stars in ALL four of the NHTSA's crash test categories. I'll let my insurance company worry about my smushed bumper if and when I'm ever stupid enough to back into a pole.
For the Costco service, I went to the web site and asked for a quote on a 2002 CRV EX. A local dealer who has agreed to sell with Costco called me up and gave me a fixed, no haggle price which happened to be 5% over invoice (only additional fees were tax, title and $40 doc fee) for an EX auto.
Not all areas have participating dealers, however. My participating dealer was 20 miles away, while there are 4 other Honda dealers within 10 miles from my house.
The other avenue to try is edmunds.com and the rest of the internet sites. I ended up getting quotes from all of these places with one dealer coming in at $200 above my Costco price. (That dealer had my preferred color coming in sooner than my Costco partner dealer and agreed to match the Costco price of $200 less, and so I purchased from them).
As I said, it's all geography...I live in SE Michigan, the home to the big three where Hondas are not as big as domestic vehicles - this may have allowed them to push the price below MSRP, but not by much. There aren't any dealers in my area with any unspoken for CRVs on their lots.
Jas- Can I get a name and phone # of the dealership you used. I am thinking that I could have the EX shipped to CA, which I believe you can do for $500 or less, and still be about $500 below MSRP.
Regarding MPG: Mine (99 5 speed) has always averaged over 25mpg. It drops 2-3 mpgs during the Winter, but comes back over the warmer months. I also saw a larger than normal drop between 50-60K. I figure it was the valves in need of adjustment. Hard to say for sure.
Bumpers (cont): Beatfarmer summed up my previous post on the subject. There is no doubt that the rear spare tire was part of the cause, but we cannot pin all of the blame on that part of the design.
In 98, the CR-V had its spare hung in the same position. Yet, it scored much better that year. The rear glass did not break and the repair estimate was almost halved. In fact, the 98 scored higher than some SUVs with their spare hidden underneath.
I agree with Bear in that there must be some other design elements, which compromise the results of this test. We speculate on how to improve on this, but without know about the rest of the design, it won't be worth much. Sure, adding a structural support to the rear door might save $1,000 in a 5 mph impact. OTOH, that same support might cause severe structural damage in a 10mph impact.
I disagree that this test has anything at all to do with safety. A car with good crush zones will cost more to repair than one that is built like a brick. But the crushed car may still be safer. I'm not saying that a poor score in the bumper tests indicate better safety, I'm saying that there is no correlation.
Here's an example. What if backing up into a pole caused damage to the alloy rim on the back of the car? Does this in any way compromise the safety or integrity of the vehicle? Nope, but it would drive up the repair costs. Alloys don't come cheap.
Vmaturo - I doubt very much that cost is the reason. The JDM Fullmark has a space-saver spare underneath the picnic table. Honda didn't save any money by designing it cheaply, they spend more money because they have BOTH designs.
The bash test: The test is as valid as any test can be. You simply have to take it for what it's worth. Things like the height of what you hit, whether or not you hit it in the middle, or on the side, or at a corner will all make differences in the amount of damage done. Based on the IIHS results, all we know for sure is that there is a high RISK of damage in the types of accident they performed.
It depends on the sound and size of the bump. You could be hearing the picnic table "catching air" as you go over a large bump. ...it could be a lose jack under the wet/dry storage space ...the lug wrench and other tools in the kit ...something in the door compartment...
If it's more of a squeek, then there may be a tsb for it. I cannot link to it, but feel free to drop me an e-mail for specific instructions.
Well, my dad took his CR-V in to get his package upgrades (keyless, security, etc.) and they also looked for the brushing noise that he said he was hearing from the rear of his V. They said they couldn't find it, so I guess he's gonna have to live with the noise. I looked up some TSBs on this, but didn't see one regarding this particular issue.
Crush zones are designed to absorb impact force. If the part could collapse in a mere 5MPH collision, it will be pretty much useless in a 25MPH collision. In other words, the structure is too *soft* to absorb the impact. Take a look at any BMW or MB design, their crush zones will pretty much stay imtact in a 5MPH collision.
BTW, two weeks ago an accident happened right in front of my place. When a Camry was waiting for the green light, it was rear-ended by a Toyota minivan doing at least 40MPH. The van driver simply did not notice there was a red light! Let's face it... there are simply too many stupid drivers on the road. The issue is really not whether you are a good driver or not... it is what kind of drivers are driving behind you!
In a state where insurance fraud is rampant (NJ), you would have a very hard time explaning to your insurance rep as to why you backed into a pole. Especially if the damage is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,600.00. Just because you have collision coverage does not guarantee that you will get reimbursed for the bill at the body shop. They can actually increase your deductible to offset their end of the bargain when all is said and done. Pretty much a pyrrhic victory IMO.
So now not only do I have to worry about poles, I better not take out a mule deer anytime soon. I'll be glad when my van depreciates a bit more so I can feel comfortable dropping the collision. Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
I had a noise from the top of the tailgate window rubbing the rubber moulding. Push on the top of the glass you can hear it. Pushing the glass tighter after closing stops it.
That's interesting Steve. "Most states," and here I thought it was just NY/NJ insurance companies milking their customers. At least we don't have moose here. Though I have no idea what a mule deer is.
The CRV (02) has the AC switch in front of the cupholder and a tall drink can push it on when not desired.Nit pick?Tonite my bicycle fell over and hit the frontend.Not a scratch.The black plastic has a purpose.It's too bad that it is not a real bumper.To change the subject,I work with British immigrant and he says we are bonkers for changing oil at 3000 miles.He said he has never gone less than 10000 miles between changes and still gets 200,000 miles out of an engine.Is it possible we are being cheated by oil companies?
Diploid, a mule deer is like a white tail but generally a little bit bigger. Fortunately we don't have them over-running the highways our here like they do back East, but you do see the occasional one dead on the side of the road.
Tomsr, I'd love for someone to point out a link showing some scientific basis for the current recommended 3,000 mile oil change interval or for a petroleum engineer to weigh in on the subject. Here's a link that I just found that seems worthy of a look-see (your British friend used to use lower sulfur gas it seems, which affects the oil change interval requirements).
I have plenty of respect for wrench turners and their life experience, but all I've ever seen is that the 3,000 mile number was pulled out of a hat somewhere. I follow the owner's manual on my Nissan for normal service, which means I change my oil every 7,500 miles. Plenty of debate in the oil topics in the Maintenance and Repair Board. It gets really fun when you start debating the initial oil change and Honda's "break-in" oil recommendations. Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
" If the part could collapse in a mere 5MPH collision, it will be pretty much useless in a 25MPH collision. In other words, the structure is too *soft* to absorb the impact."
Bear, you're confusing bumpers with crush zones. The "parts" that collapsed in the IIHS test are largely cosmetic. The bumper bash test does not test structural integrity. We cannot make assumptions regarding structure based on how well a bumper does.
We (myself and several others) are looking to have a meet for both New Englanders and Canadians. I've been sending out messages through other channels and already have a dozen responses with requests for more information.
Activities will include the usual camaraderie, food, door prizes, and discussions of modifications. However, we are also planning the world’s first Honda SUV Olympics. (Have you ever tried auto cross while blindfolded?) All games will be perfectly safe and tons of fun. I’ve attended several of these meets and made some truly wonderful friends. It’s great to put a face to a screen name. I’ve also won more than $150 (US dollars) of OEM and aftermarket goodies for my CR-V. We plan to have door prizes for CR-Vs, Pilots, and the MDX.
We are looking at dates in the end of August. The event will most likely be a single day affair with the possibility of activities for those folks who show up the night prior or stay for the following day. The location depends largely on how many responses we get from folks who wish to attend. So far, we have an excellent site in New Hampshire. You may find Franconia Notch State Park on MapQuest for reference purposes. However, we are also investigating locations in Connecticut, Eastern New York, and Western Mass.
If you are interested in attending, or would like more information, please contact me by e-mail at Varmint@hondasuv.com. In your response, please include your preferences on the following:
Location – Date –
And, of course, all other suggestions are welcome. I look forward to hearing from you.
Hi everyone. I've been lurking here a few weeks as we've been looking into a good car for our daughter who is in her second year of college. After looking at a lot of "cute" cars, and "sporty" cars, it dawned on all of us that the space of an SUV might be quite valuable to a college kid. She fell in love with the CR-V EX because of the small size and the fact that it handles like a car. It is on order, and she is VERY excited about it.
Now, tell me - do we want to make sure we get the tires that they are changing to? The Dueler H/L's? Tell me how bad the road noise is - her college is 4 hours away from home.
Tell me more about the break-in period, too -- she'll only have the car a couple of weeks before she goes back to school (IF it arrives when they said it would!).
Anyone else out there have any issues with their AC output ? I have a '98 CRV EX, and it has always been a bit lacking in the force of the air output. The temp is good, but the output of air, well....did I mention I live in Phoenix where it was 112 today ?!?!?!?
That said, wondering if anyone can recommend some type of Honda or other type of aftermarket accessory to "boost" the AC output - or am I talking about simply getting a beefier AC compressor or fan ?
"Bear, you're confusing bumpers with crush zones. The "parts" that collapsed in the IIHS test are largely cosmetic. The bumper bash test does not test structural integrity. We cannot make assumptions regarding structure based on how well a bumper does."
Varmint,
*Grin* You are the one who's really confused... or probably you are simply trying to spread out disinfo again. IIHS has never called it a bumper test. Read the title, it is *5 MPH CRASH TESTS*!! It is a crash test, not your bumper or cosmetic damage test. It does test the safety of your car. It tests how your car will protect you in a minor collision. It just happened that for most cars, 5MPH test is more or less like having a bumper test, but unfortunately, this is not the case for several small SUVs. Both Freelander and CRV's rear doors were gone and had to be replaced. Freelander's front hood and front fender, i.e. part of its front crush zone was pushed out of the line. These are safety related damage. CRV's front body, not just the bumper, also has got some damage. Well, you are very welcome to call all of those damages cosmetic, just like the way you call it a 5MPH bumper test!
Land Rover's claim about the higher repair cost due to high quality material and design complexity is outrageous. They really have to fire this PR person. On the other side, Honda's response sounds much more sincere. They feel sorry about the bad result and are looking into the issue, at the same time, they stress that CRV is still a very safe car. I am sure next time they will definitely fix the problem and make CRV even safer. This attitude is really what makes Honda the Honda today!
Note that both companies did not try to get away by saying that the test had nothing to do with the integrity of the structure. The reason is simple... because the test does, especially when the bumper does not exist or fails.
So the dollar figures are for hospital bills, not damage repairs? Is that what I'm to believe?
Here's a quote from the link you provided:
"The four impacts conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to assess how well bumpers prevent damage in low-speed collisions are front- and rear-into-flat-barrier plus front-into-angle-barrier and rear-into-pole."
It's not a safety test, as far as the safety of car occupants go.
IIHS says:
"Bumpers should protect car bodies from damage in low-speed collisions, the kind that frequently occur in congested urban traffic. But many don't. The Institute conducts four 5 mph crash tests to assess bumper performance: front-into-flat-barrier, rear-into-flat-barrier, front-into-angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole."
If it was a safety test that measures injury, they'd have dummies in the vehicles. Instead, it's a bumper test that measures injury to the wallet or insurance company!
Where I've seen IIHS refer to the bumper (crash) tests as a safety issue is if a bumper could have prevented a headlight from getting smashed, or something similar.
BTW, IIHS sometimes calls their "5-mph crash test" a "bumper test" as well:
"NOTE: Repair costs are as of May 2002. Where two or more models are grouped together on the same line, bumper tests were conducted on the model listed first."
Let's wait and see how the CR-V fares in the IIHS offset frontal crash test.
What if you had a trailer hitch mounted on the CRV then installed a T bar which any welding shop could make up,in the event of a low speed bash would the unibody be damaged?
Tomsr - That depends largely on how "low speed" the impact would be.
The new Chevy Trailblazer has a standard trailer hitch. It was there for the IIHS bumper bash. With that hardware in place, it scored $0.00 in damage as a result. IIRC, they had to change their pole test (to an offset) to cause damage as well.
So it stands to reason that a trailer hitch can provide some protection. The hitch transfers the load from the vehicle's bumpers to the frame. However, you run the risk of bending the frame if the impact is more than 5 mph. This applies to any vehicle, not just the CR-V. Instead of a $1-2K repair, you'd need a new vehicle.
I dunno that I would risk it just to save a bumper.
Not trying to rehash this topic, but there have been reports floating around for years stating that frequent oil changes are just an unnecessary waste of money (and oil). Apparently it's been proven that modern oil in a modern automobile can easily go 10 - 15K miles between changes. And what's more, dirty oil does not make it any less an effective lubricant. That's why, to me anyway, the Toyota recommended 3K miles oil change for their 3.0 V6 is a little disturbing. I think they are treating the symptom, not the disease.
"to assess how well bumpers prevent damage in low-speed collisions are front- and rear-into-flat-barrier plus front-into-angle-barrier and rear-into-pole."
The key here is "how well". If the car has a lousy bumper, the same test will also show you how much body damage the car will endure. This is the reason IIHS has never formally call it a bumper test. They do not use dummies in the test because 99.9% of cases the passenager cabin will stay imtact in a 5MPH crash test. There is no need to do so... except they can deploy high tech dummies which can measure the impact force on different spots of the dummy body.
From the same press release:
"The same two SUVs turned in poor front-into-angle-barrier test performances. The Freelander's hood and front fenders were pushed out of line, and there was safety-related damage -- a broken headlight . The CR-V's headlight was damaged in the same test, and there was costly-to-fix damage to the car body"
Hospital bill? I think in the Freelander case, you may have to go see a chiropractor. CRV's headlights are gone, too.. Too bad the IIHS thinks they are safety related issues. oh, I see I see... headlights are only part of the bumper system in your definition. And what's the big deal? Why bother to install a hitch to protect the bumper/rear door? Just get a new rear gate/door and a new bumper after a crash because they are cheaper than a hitch kit anyway!
The hitch kit will probably work ok to reduce the 5MPH crash damage but it will definitely put more stress on the main frame in a 25MPH crash. In CRV's case, since the rear bumper really does not do much, the main frame will bend anyway in a 25MPH, I can see a small advantage of installing a trailer hitch here.
The real solution is to install a big bumper go beyond the spare tire or to enforce the structure of the rear gate.
Bear - I am not mistaken. You are simply changing the subject to avoid being proven wrong. The following quote is the issue which prompted my response:
”It is only a minor 5MPH collision. If the car body can be easily gone at 5MPH, what will protect you in a 25MPH collision on highway?”
You are implying that there is a positive correlation between damage performance in the 5 mph test and safety performance at a higher speed. That is false. Take a look at the data.
These are the vehicles (from this class) which fared better than the CR-V in the full frontal impact portion of the IIHS bumper bash:
According to your theory, a vehicle with structure that is “too *soft* to absorb the impact." should fare poorly in a similar impact at higher speeds. It just so happens that the NHTSA conducts such a test at 35mph. All of the vehicles listed above (with the potential exception of one which has not been tested) score worse than the CR-V.
If there is a correlation, it would be a negative correlation. In other words, vehicles that score worse on the bumper bash will score better on real safety tests. I think we all know that isn’t necessarily true either. The point is measurements of low speed impact repairs have nothing to do with occupant safety for impacts at higher speeds.
You are changing the subject when you mention the IIHS comments on items like the headlights, hood, and fenders. That is, unless you think that headlight and fenders should be able to withstand the 25mph impact you quoted earlier.
The comments regarding the headlamps reference a possible side effect if you were to drive the vehicle without getting it fixed. We are no longer talking about crash protection. The comments regarding the hood and fender being pushed out of line are at least partly related to crash protection, but in no way are they measured by the test or presented with a conclusive result. The hood and fender moved. That is all we know. Whether that is good or bad for occupant protection is not discussed. If I were to engage in speculation on the issue, I would have to ask, “isn’t that what they are supposed to do?”
I went car shopping today and thought I would share observations with this message board. This post ought to go on the "CR-V vs. RAV-4" board but that's been closed to new messages, so...,.,,..
We are replacing our 85 Toyota Tercel Wagon, 4WD. We want a good snow/ski car, and feel a bit leery about totally trusting FWD where we live. I'm okay with it, having grown up and learning to drive in Buffalo, NY, but my wife is from the Bay Area and has done fine in snow driving with the Tercel, but I'm not sure how it would be for her with FWD only.
We went out to look at small and mid SUV's. Yeah, I know we ought to check out the Outback - sized cars, but after driving ten years in a VW Vanagon I have grown accustomed to having lots of space around me. I'm 6', 205 lbs, and all knees and elbows. I don't like bumping into things when I drive. I would probably be happiest in a big ol' truck, actually. So size is important to me. Also of importance is low road noise. We live five hours away from Seattle and visit there about five or six times a year, and Portland as well, and want to be able to take trips like that without feeling the fatigue that comes with doing it in a VW van or older small Toyota as we have been.
Our top contenders (today) thus were the CRV, RAV4, the Highlander, and the Honda Pilot, which is the Acura MDX actually. ____________________ CR-V: hands down the favorite of our kids, 11 and 13. TONS of rear seat room, comfy seats, and felt roomy inside. Great pickup and handling. BUT: outward visibility seemed occluded. I couldn't get the seat in a position where I could easily see the tach and speedometer. I also had great trouble finding a comfortable resting place for my left foot. It was jammed right up against the left side of the footwell, and there were several bumps and lumps up there as well. I needed another couple inches deeper and to the left. THere was lots of road noise, too, mostly from the tires. When the pavement changed composition we could hear and feel it. I couldn't imagine driving it for four or five hours. I also felt that the seat didn't quite fit me, as though it were rotated a bit to the left or something. I was a bit squirmy.
Rav-4: Smaller interior than the CRV, but still roomy. In fact, the driver's position had more room for me and my gnarly legs. No knee bumping or foot twaddling trying to find a comfy rest position. Better exterior vision, except for the hugely wide rear corner posts, which bothered me. The engine was anemic. I felt like I was pushing it up the hill on the freeway, and felt the tachs rev up a lot before it shifted. Not a good feeling. Better at road noise than the CRV. Yes, that's right. Less interior room. Abysmally ugly fabric on the interior.
Honda Pilot: Nice car, bland interior. Slight cramping with the footspace thing, but acceptable barely. Some noticable road noise. Squishy, rolling, loose ride. My wife felt she had to hang on in corners where the CRV went nimbly through. Small third row seat but it could do in a pinch piling kids into the car.
Highlander: Fantastic exterior view. Best drive of all four. Acceptable leg room for me. Best seats of all four. Quietest of all four. Most expensive, too!!
COnclusion: I want the CRV with more leg room, nicer seat, and quieter, and I will shut up and buy it. We all loved the fit and feel of the interior - it felt like something we could really live in for hours at a time, and the zip was great - it felt like the test drive of the Mazda MPV last week.
Cheers, hope this helps someone, feel free to contact me,
Comments
The top of the pole was definitely below the rear glass and thus out of view. I'd guess about three feet high, give or take a few inches.
As for the "sacrificing the car structure to protect the passenagers" talk from Land Rover. This is all B.S.! It is only a minor 5MPH collision. If the car body can be easily gone at 5MPH, what will protect you in a 25MPH collision on highway?
-bear
The rear tire alone is not the main reason for high repair cost. Just look at the results for most minivans, or midsized SUVs for example.
I got a consistent 8.4 L/ 100 Km during my trip but due to the roads there and in between I was only driving at about 90Km/hr most of the time (nonetheless it was in the hills) we were 2 occupants + the back was full of our things.
All in all I am amazed of the fuel economy for a 4wd (well not really) mini(medium)-suv. And should i say it i was very happy with the pep of the four banger
It doesn't matter how careful you are about backing up. Your CR-V can get hit while parked. Then if you can't nail the person who hit you, you have to file a claim against your own insurance. The higher the repair bill is, the more likely your insurance premiums will go up.
For the folks who think the damage is unacceptable, sure more bumper in the back would be nice, but anyone can design a test that will overcome any safety mechanism the engineers can come up with. Think of the numerous head up the [non-permissible content removed] things folks regularly do with the vehicles while driving and then design a test to incorporate such stupidity. (You know who you are, those who need a vehicle that can withstand backing up into a pole you can't see because you're not looking. God forbid a child wanders out behind your vehicle, or anywhere outside the house when you're on the road). Oh Magoo, you've done it again...
Slugline and co., I'm with you, I want one on the hood and one on the roof, just in case. I drive through a lot of debris on the road, and I wonder why.
Slipped into the Nomex flight suit, flame on!
Thanks in advance.
mounted spare as a bumper.A compartment in the rear with access through a door which serves as a bumper would allow the tire to be a shock absorber. This would require the compartment
to be sturdy enough to take a 5 mph blow.The old
VW beetle used the spare in the front as a
cushion in case of an accident.Many years ago the
Germans were the leaders in making practical safe
cars.That may be true now but they are not affordable for the working masses.Anyhow backing into a pole is not real world.Getting rear ended at 30+ mph is,so that's the test that should be done.
Hopefully it will arrive at the dealer on Mon.
Thanks!
True loyal Honda fans don't mind the damage. They are always happy with whatever Honda gives them.
Just like a 3/36 Warranty. Nobody complains...they just buy an extended warranty at their own expense.
If you back into a pole, the warranty's not going to cover it, and most likely, neither will your insurance. If someone rear ends you, the warranty still won't apply, you'd have to take that up with the insurance company.
I really watched the poles today at Home Depot, lol. I did scrub my back tire pretty good in another lot though. You guys have me really paranoid now.
btw, it's not necessary to reply to a post that you think is a "troll" ;-)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Not all areas have participating dealers, however. My participating dealer was 20 miles away, while there are 4 other Honda dealers within 10 miles from my house.
The other avenue to try is edmunds.com and the rest of the internet sites. I ended up getting quotes from all of these places with one dealer coming in at $200 above my Costco price. (That dealer had my preferred color coming in sooner than my Costco partner dealer and agreed to match the Costco price of $200 less, and so I purchased from them).
As I said, it's all geography...I live in SE Michigan, the home to the big three where Hondas are not as big as domestic vehicles - this may have allowed them to push the price below MSRP, but not by much. There aren't any dealers in my area with any unspoken for CRVs on their lots.
Bumpers (cont): Beatfarmer summed up my previous post on the subject. There is no doubt that the rear spare tire was part of the cause, but we cannot pin all of the blame on that part of the design.
In 98, the CR-V had its spare hung in the same position. Yet, it scored much better that year. The rear glass did not break and the repair estimate was almost halved. In fact, the 98 scored higher than some SUVs with their spare hidden underneath.
I agree with Bear in that there must be some other design elements, which compromise the results of this test. We speculate on how to improve on this, but without know about the rest of the design, it won't be worth much. Sure, adding a structural support to the rear door might save $1,000 in a 5 mph impact. OTOH, that same support might cause severe structural damage in a 10mph impact.
I disagree that this test has anything at all to do with safety. A car with good crush zones will cost more to repair than one that is built like a brick. But the crushed car may still be safer. I'm not saying that a poor score in the bumper tests indicate better safety, I'm saying that there is no correlation.
Here's an example. What if backing up into a pole caused damage to the alloy rim on the back of the car? Does this in any way compromise the safety or integrity of the vehicle? Nope, but it would drive up the repair costs. Alloys don't come cheap.
Vmaturo - I doubt very much that cost is the reason. The JDM Fullmark has a space-saver spare underneath the picnic table. Honda didn't save any money by designing it cheaply, they spend more money because they have BOTH designs.
The bash test: The test is as valid as any test can be. You simply have to take it for what it's worth. Things like the height of what you hit, whether or not you hit it in the middle, or on the side, or at a corner will all make differences in the amount of damage done. Based on the IIHS results, all we know for sure is that there is a high RISK of damage in the types of accident they performed.
It depends on the sound and size of the bump. You could be hearing the picnic table "catching air" as you go over a large bump. ...it could be a lose jack under the wet/dry storage space ...the lug wrench and other tools in the kit ...something in the door compartment...
If it's more of a squeek, then there may be a tsb for it. I cannot link to it, but feel free to drop me an e-mail for specific instructions.
Crush zones are designed to absorb impact force. If the part could collapse in a mere 5MPH collision, it will be pretty much useless in a 25MPH collision. In other words, the structure is too *soft* to absorb the impact. Take a look at any BMW or MB design, their crush zones will pretty much stay imtact in a 5MPH collision.
BTW, two weeks ago an accident happened right in front of my place. When a Camry was waiting for the green light, it was rear-ended by a Toyota minivan doing at least 40MPH. The van driver simply did not notice there was a red light! Let's face it... there are simply too many stupid drivers on the road. The issue is really not whether you are a good driver or not... it is what kind of drivers are driving behind you!
-bear
Just because you have collision coverage does not guarantee that you will get reimbursed for the bill at the body shop. They can actually increase your deductible to offset their end of the bargain when all is said and done. Pretty much a pyrrhic victory IMO.
prlady1 "Talk to the Press!" May 29, 2002 3:23pm
So now not only do I have to worry about poles, I better not take out a mule deer anytime soon. I'll be glad when my van depreciates a bit more so I can feel comfortable dropping the collision.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
cupholder and a tall drink can push it on
when not desired.Nit pick?Tonite my bicycle fell
over and hit the frontend.Not a scratch.The black
plastic has a purpose.It's too bad that it is not
a real bumper.To change the subject,I work with
British immigrant and he says we are bonkers for
changing oil at 3000 miles.He said he has never
gone less than 10000 miles between changes and
still gets 200,000 miles out of an engine.Is it
possible we are being cheated by oil companies?
Tomsr, I'd love for someone to point out a link showing some scientific basis for the current recommended 3,000 mile oil change interval or for a petroleum engineer to weigh in on the subject. Here's a link that I just found that seems worthy of a look-see (your British friend used to use lower sulfur gas it seems, which affects the oil change interval requirements).
I have plenty of respect for wrench turners and their life experience, but all I've ever seen is that the 3,000 mile number was pulled out of a hat somewhere. I follow the owner's manual on my Nissan for normal service, which means I change my oil every 7,500 miles. Plenty of debate in the oil topics in the Maintenance and Repair Board. It gets really fun when you start debating the initial oil change and Honda's "break-in" oil recommendations.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Bear, you're confusing bumpers with crush zones. The "parts" that collapsed in the IIHS test are largely cosmetic. The bumper bash test does not test structural integrity. We cannot make assumptions regarding structure based on how well a bumper does.
Activities will include the usual camaraderie, food, door prizes, and discussions of modifications. However, we are also planning the world’s first Honda SUV Olympics. (Have you ever tried auto cross while blindfolded?) All games will be perfectly safe and tons of fun. I’ve attended several of these meets and made some truly wonderful friends. It’s great to put a face to a screen name. I’ve also won more than $150 (US dollars) of OEM and aftermarket goodies for my CR-V. We plan to have door prizes for CR-Vs, Pilots, and the MDX.
We are looking at dates in the end of August. The event will most likely be a single day affair with the possibility of activities for those folks who show up the night prior or stay for the following day. The location depends largely on how many responses we get from folks who wish to attend. So far, we have an excellent site in New Hampshire. You may find Franconia Notch State Park on MapQuest for reference purposes. However, we are also investigating locations in Connecticut, Eastern New York, and Western Mass.
If you are interested in attending, or would like more information, please contact me by e-mail at Varmint@hondasuv.com. In your response, please include your preferences on the following:
Location –
Date –
And, of course, all other suggestions are welcome. I look forward to hearing from you.
Now, tell me - do we want to make sure we get the tires that they are changing to? The Dueler H/L's? Tell me how bad the road noise is - her college is 4 hours away from home.
Tell me more about the break-in period, too -- she'll only have the car a couple of weeks before she goes back to school (IF it arrives when they said it would!).
Thanks for your comments.
The concerned Mom.
That said, wondering if anyone can recommend some type of Honda or other type of aftermarket accessory to "boost" the AC output - or am I talking about simply getting a beefier AC compressor or fan ?
Thanks for the help in advance before I melt !
Varmint,
*Grin* You are the one who's really confused... or probably you are simply trying to spread out disinfo again. IIHS has never called it a bumper test. Read the title, it is *5 MPH CRASH TESTS*!! It is a crash test, not your bumper or cosmetic damage test. It does test the safety of your car. It tests how your car will protect you in a minor collision. It just happened that for most cars, 5MPH test is more or less like having a bumper test, but unfortunately, this is not the case for several small SUVs. Both Freelander and CRV's rear doors were gone and had to be replaced. Freelander's front hood and front fender, i.e. part of its front crush zone was pushed out of the line. These are safety related damage. CRV's front body, not just the bumper, also has got some damage. Well, you are very welcome to call all of those damages cosmetic, just like the way you call it a 5MPH bumper test!
Here is the link to the IIHS press release:
http://www.carsafety.org/news_releases/2002/pr070202.htm
-bear
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020702/ap_on_re_us/bumper_tests_1
Land Rover's claim about the higher repair cost due to high quality material and design complexity is outrageous. They really have to fire this PR person. On the other side, Honda's response sounds much more sincere. They feel sorry about the bad result and are looking into the issue, at the same time, they stress that CRV is still a very safe car. I am sure next time they will definitely fix the problem and make CRV even safer. This attitude is really what makes Honda the Honda today!
Note that both companies did not try to get away by saying that the test had nothing to do with the integrity of the structure. The reason is simple... because the test does, especially when the bumper does not exist or fails.
-bear
Here's a quote from the link you provided:
"The four impacts conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to assess how well bumpers prevent damage in low-speed collisions are front- and rear-into-flat-barrier plus front-into-angle-barrier and rear-into-pole."
This is a safety test.
This is another safety test.
The test, known to the industry as the "bumper bash", is not a safety test.
IIHS says:
"Bumpers should protect car bodies from damage in low-speed collisions, the kind that frequently occur in congested urban traffic. But many don't. The Institute conducts four 5 mph crash tests to assess bumper performance: front-into-flat-barrier, rear-into-flat-barrier, front-into-angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole."
If it was a safety test that measures injury, they'd have dummies in the vehicles. Instead, it's a bumper test that measures injury to the wallet or insurance company!
Where I've seen IIHS refer to the bumper (crash) tests as a safety issue is if a bumper could have prevented a headlight from getting smashed, or something similar.
BTW, IIHS sometimes calls their "5-mph crash test" a "bumper test" as well:
"NOTE: Repair costs are as of May 2002. Where two or more models are grouped together on the same line, bumper tests were conducted on the model listed first."
Let's wait and see how the CR-V fares in the IIHS offset frontal crash test.
then installed a T bar which any welding shop
could make up,in the event of a low speed bash
would the unibody be damaged?
The new Chevy Trailblazer has a standard trailer hitch. It was there for the IIHS bumper bash. With that hardware in place, it scored $0.00 in damage as a result. IIRC, they had to change their pole test (to an offset) to cause damage as well.
So it stands to reason that a trailer hitch can provide some protection. The hitch transfers the load from the vehicle's bumpers to the frame. However, you run the risk of bending the frame if the impact is more than 5 mph. This applies to any vehicle, not just the CR-V. Instead of a $1-2K repair, you'd need a new vehicle.
I dunno that I would risk it just to save a bumper.
You are wrong again... This is what you quoted:
"to assess how well bumpers prevent damage in low-speed collisions are front- and rear-into-flat-barrier plus front-into-angle-barrier and rear-into-pole."
The key here is "how well". If the car has a lousy bumper, the same test will also show you how much body damage the car will endure. This is the reason IIHS has never formally call it a bumper test. They do not use dummies in the test because 99.9% of cases the passenager cabin will stay imtact in a 5MPH crash test. There is no need to do so... except they can deploy high tech dummies which can measure the impact force on different spots of the dummy body.
From the same press release:
"The same two SUVs turned in poor front-into-angle-barrier test performances. The Freelander's hood and front fenders were pushed out of line, and there was safety-related damage -- a broken headlight . The CR-V's headlight was damaged in the same test, and there was costly-to-fix damage to the car body"
Hospital bill? I think in the Freelander case, you may have to go see a chiropractor. CRV's headlights are gone, too.. Too bad the IIHS thinks they are safety related issues. oh, I see I see... headlights are only part of the bumper system in your definition. And what's the big deal? Why bother to install a hitch to protect the bumper/rear door? Just get a new rear gate/door and a new bumper after a crash because they are cheaper than a hitch kit anyway!
-bear
The hitch kit will probably work ok to reduce the 5MPH crash damage but it will definitely put more stress on the main frame in a 25MPH crash. In CRV's case, since the rear bumper really does not do much, the main frame will bend anyway in a 25MPH, I can see a small advantage of installing a trailer hitch here.
The real solution is to install a big bumper go beyond the spare tire or to enforce the structure of the rear gate.
-bear
”It is only a minor 5MPH collision. If the car body can be easily gone at 5MPH, what will protect you in a 25MPH collision on highway?”
You are implying that there is a positive correlation between damage performance in the 5 mph test and safety performance at a higher speed. That is false. Take a look at the data.
These are the vehicles (from this class) which fared better than the CR-V in the full frontal impact portion of the IIHS bumper bash:
98 + 03 Forester
01 Escape/Tribute
02 VUE
98 Wrangler
99 Grand Vitara
98 RAV4
According to your theory, a vehicle with structure that is “too *soft* to absorb the impact." should fare poorly in a similar impact at higher speeds. It just so happens that the NHTSA conducts such a test at 35mph. All of the vehicles listed above (with the potential exception of one which has not been tested) score worse than the CR-V.
If there is a correlation, it would be a negative correlation. In other words, vehicles that score worse on the bumper bash will score better on real safety tests. I think we all know that isn’t necessarily true either. The point is measurements of low speed impact repairs have nothing to do with occupant safety for impacts at higher speeds.
You are changing the subject when you mention the IIHS comments on items like the headlights, hood, and fenders. That is, unless you think that headlight and fenders should be able to withstand the 25mph impact you quoted earlier.
The comments regarding the headlamps reference a possible side effect if you were to drive the vehicle without getting it fixed. We are no longer talking about crash protection. The comments regarding the hood and fender being pushed out of line are at least partly related to crash protection, but in no way are they measured by the test or presented with a conclusive result. The hood and fender moved. That is all we know. Whether that is good or bad for occupant protection is not discussed. If I were to engage in speculation on the issue, I would have to ask, “isn’t that what they are supposed to do?”
I went car shopping today and thought I would share observations with this message board. This post ought to go on the "CR-V vs. RAV-4" board but that's been closed to new messages, so...,.,,..
We are replacing our 85 Toyota Tercel Wagon, 4WD. We want a good snow/ski car, and feel a bit leery about totally trusting FWD where we live. I'm okay with it, having grown up and learning to drive in Buffalo, NY, but my wife is from the Bay Area and has done fine in snow driving with the Tercel, but I'm not sure how it would be for her with FWD only.
We went out to look at small and mid SUV's. Yeah, I know we ought to check out the Outback - sized cars, but after driving ten years in a VW Vanagon I have grown accustomed to having lots of space around me. I'm 6', 205 lbs, and all knees and elbows. I don't like bumping into things when I drive. I would probably be happiest in a big ol' truck, actually. So size is important to me. Also of importance is low road noise. We live five hours away from Seattle and visit there about five or six times a year, and Portland as well, and want to be able to take trips like that without feeling the fatigue that comes with doing it in a VW van or older small Toyota as we have been.
Our top contenders (today) thus were the CRV, RAV4, the Highlander, and the Honda Pilot, which is the Acura MDX actually.
____________________
CR-V: hands down the favorite of our kids, 11 and 13. TONS of rear seat room, comfy seats, and felt roomy inside. Great pickup and handling. BUT: outward visibility seemed occluded. I couldn't get the seat in a position where I could easily see the tach and speedometer. I also had great trouble finding a comfortable resting place for my left foot. It was jammed right up against the left side of the footwell, and there were several bumps and lumps up there as well. I needed another couple inches deeper and to the left. THere was lots of road noise, too, mostly from the tires. When the pavement changed composition we could hear and feel it. I couldn't imagine driving it for four or five hours. I also felt that the seat didn't quite fit me, as though it were rotated a bit to the left or something. I was a bit squirmy.
Rav-4: Smaller interior than the CRV, but still roomy. In fact, the driver's position had more room for me and my gnarly legs. No knee bumping or foot twaddling trying to find a comfy rest position. Better exterior vision, except for the hugely wide rear corner posts, which bothered me. The engine was anemic. I felt like I was pushing it up the hill on the freeway, and felt the tachs rev up a lot before it shifted. Not a good feeling. Better at road noise than the CRV. Yes, that's right.
Less interior room. Abysmally ugly fabric on the interior.
Honda Pilot: Nice car, bland interior. Slight cramping with the footspace thing, but acceptable barely. Some noticable road noise. Squishy, rolling, loose ride. My wife felt she had to hang on in corners where the CRV went nimbly through. Small third row seat but it could do in a pinch piling kids into the car.
Highlander: Fantastic exterior view. Best drive of all four. Acceptable leg room for me. Best seats of all four. Quietest of all four. Most expensive, too!!
COnclusion: I want the CRV with more leg room, nicer seat, and quieter, and I will shut up and buy it. We all loved the fit and feel of the interior - it felt like something we could really live in for hours at a time, and the zip was great - it felt like the test drive of the Mazda MPV last week.
Cheers, hope this helps someone, feel free to contact me,
Carlos Alden