Tidester, Really? Do you not find Ritter credible?
For me it isn't Ritter alone that has made me a little skeptical.... it includes liberals and conservatives that have eluded to such skeptism not too mention most world leaders.
Including... -Pat Buchanan (whom calls this policy neo-conservative) -Dick Army (whom up to the last few days opposed Bush) -the late Paul Wellstone -most other countries
Last month, I replaced the OEM duelers for a set of Michelin Harmonys and now have 1000 miles on them. They are definately quieter than the originals. They did a good job with traction this past week during our ice/snow storm here in Colorado. I had no trouble driving up the ice/packed snow hills when other cars were.
(However, this is my first winter with my 2000 EX so I can't compare the performance with that of the Duelers)
I did look at the Yokahoma touring and Aegis LS4. I decided against the Touring because of their lower snow traction as rated from Consumer reports. I decided against the Aegis LS4 because I could only get them by special order from local stores or Tirerack and didn't want to go through the hassle of ordering a new one if one was damaged. I paid $95 each for the Harmonies.
Juice - The economics of buying a hybrid do not add up. Not yet, anyway. So I certainly wouldn't buy one for that reason. But if the decrease in emissions was significant and power were adequate, I would still consider it. Manufacturers build the vehicles that people buy. If we're going to clean up car emissions and reduce our dependence of fossil fuels, we have to vote with our wallets.
Lok888 - Could you please elaborate on post 9352. I have no idea what you mean. Thanks.
Steve - Not to discredit Toyota (I fully expect that they will try to make that goal), but 2012 is a long way off and such a statement is really just PR. A lot can happen in that time. Not long ago Ford promised to raise the fuel economy of their truck fleet by 25%. A bad set of tires and one reckless CEO later... and they can't afford to do it.
Well, I'm due to replace the MV in '09 or so, so hopefully Bill Ford will meet and exceed Toyota's goals. I like the idea of saving money at the pump whether by hybrid, fuel cell or tweaking the good 'ol IC engine.
Not at all. His position has changed exactly 180° with said change occuring after he was out of the intelligence loop. When he had the facts he espoused one thing and when he doesn't have the facts he espouses the opposite. Don't you find that strange? Also, as a guest of the Iraqi government his credibility becomes even more strained.
There are good reasons to be skeptical of the Bush policy but Ritter is most certainly not one of them.
varmint - What I saw from the Toyota web site (Future Vehicles) is this Toyota Highlander look alike Fuel Cell Hybird Vehicle (FCHV-4). It didn't say much about the production date. I believe Toyota is selling the previous model of RAV-4 as RAV-4 EV. By the way, I heard few rumors that Honda will get a hybird version of its CR-V. And I don't know any others will have one on their SUV lines.
Wanted to know if anyone put any kind of bumber or grill guards on their 2002 CR-V.I'm going to put 18's inch rims and lower profile tires to make the CR-V look better.
I am not sure I follow you.... please explain his 180.
Ritter said there are weapons left in 98, today he says there still are weapons left. He believes there are alternatives to a full out war with Iraq.
In addition he was a visitor of the Iraqi government, the same as those congressmen who went over there. Ritter was sponsored by peace groups in the United States, not the Iraqi government. If Ritter was paid by the Iraqi gov't then I am sure the US intelligence would point that out and would seize him immediately.
19 of the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, they caused 3,000 deaths last year. I think Saudi Arabia is more of a threat. Oh, I almost forgot, if we attacked Saudi Arabia they would pull out of our markets. They currently have 200 billion dollars in our market.
"Last month, I replaced the OEM duelers for a set of Michelin Harmonys and now have 1000 miles on them. They are definately quieter than the originals."
I am considering the same move on my '02. Now let me ask you, and please answer as honestly and un-biased as you possibly can, on a scale of 1-10, 1 = original loud road noise and 10 = cadillac plush quietness, where would you place the Harmony? Thanks!
Some of you have mentioned a SE edition of the CR-V. What do you think will be on that? A V6?! I know this is all speculation, isn't it? Or has someone actually heard something about it?
I just saw MotorTrend's SUV of the year competition and the CRV was not in it but the Element was.What's that about?The winner the Volvo XC90 at $45000 it should be.Now for us poor folks how about an umder $25000 SUV shootout.Just because you can lease a $45000 car,should you?
Regarding speculation about a CRV-SE, I've never seen Honda add major engineering changes with a Special Edition model. The SE has typically been used to extend a design's market life.
Sooooooo... Don't hold your breath for a V6 or hybrid. I think any SE would include things like nicer trim, upgraded seats (maybe heated leather?), better audio, and other add-on stuff... already in production in non-USA models.
I read back a few hundred posts here but nobody has discussed the price they paid for their 2003 CRV. So I defer to the regulars here: Has anybody posted about getting anything off of the MSRP or is everybody paying straight MSRP?
I got some responses from few Boston area Honda dealers. Most of them are asking the MSRP. They still have some 2002 CR-Vs and only few 2003 in the lot. If you want silver, properly a wait for 4 weeks. They came from UK and some from Japan. But it is still not catch up the high demand.
If, and it is a big IF, the Kia & Hyundia utes continue getting LOTS nicer, for not much cash Honda will be forced to respond.
Frankly, I think Honda is quite happy with the demand the CR-V still has, especially as the Escape & Vue are SIGNIFICANTLY better values, with the special deals.
My hunch is that the Liberty's sales numbers are the only disappointment in the whole "kinda small" ute group....
Tomsr - The 2002 CR-V was in last year's MT SUV of the Year article. Mags don't pay much attention to the calendar.
Mjsnd80 - Absolutely. There is potential for a power boost (maybe 180hp), but certainly not a V6. Most SE additions will be cosmetic or just extra gadgets.
Steve- The guide for 2002 CRV is using 3750/7500 oil change advise rather than Honda's recommended 5000/10000. I think I will wait till it's updated to use it. course it took Honda almost a year to update their owners site on the same issue.
When Scott Ritter was making news awhile back Fox news reported he was paid 500,000 by Sadaams government. So I would tend to agree with Tidestar if Fox was correct.
We paid $22,320 for our CR-V EX Auto.( Westchester area in NY) We could get it less in Tulsa, OK. ($22,280 or little bits less...) It's red (that I wanted) and we only waited one day for delivery. I have not seen the car yet. (The car and my husband are in NY.) He says so far no problem... oh, he took the center rear seat head-rest, otherwise he cannot get good rear view.(that's he said.) It will be my car, he can keeps his fancy Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD. ( I don't like the ride, it gives me back ache. Also the mileage is terrible, best highway was 15.3mpg.) I will see MY CR-V this Friday...yeah!!!
Brought my 2002 CRV in for a 10K check and they said a road stone hit the AC condensor through the opening in the grill. It has a leak and the damage is not covered by the warranty and insurance has to pay. Has anyone else had this problem. Seems like a pretty big opening in the grill. Thanks
I paid $265 plus tax on 30k check for my 99 CR-V, Klein Honda Everett, WA. I had them also change the auto tranny fluid which is not required until the 90k check for normal conditions. I just can't see waiting till 90k miles to change the xtranny fluid. Didn't touch the diff fluid, though.
Ritter said he needed the job to pay bills.I remember this report because I thought it strange that he would accept this position with Sadaams regime (public relations} after what he was trying to do when he was in Iraq as a weapons inspector. I am not much interested in Ritter but I bet if you go to Google.com and hit Scott Ritter you can get some straight scoop.
Ok, foxnews and its pundits (pretty much cable news in general) have been notorious for mis-reporting things. Look at the energy crisis the summer before the 2000 elections, Gov. Davis has created an energy crisis! Crisis! Crisis! All the hour long reports and such pretty much maid Gov. Davis look to be the reason for the crisis.
Accepted by everyone today, Enron created a demand problem so they could profit, one part of their huge scandal. Watch C-SPAN for news, watch Foxnews and other cable news take it as a grain of salt. If you don't take it with a grain of salt you might as well be watching a mid-morning talk show like "Jerry Springer" or read the tabloids. Pundits are paid opinionist who have their own motivation.
If I go and search the internet I will find that Bush and Israel created the 911 attacks to profit from it fininacially and politically. You know what??? That IS complete Bull #@#$@ and isn't true, we all know that! Of course he didn't do such a thing. So go surf the net and find bogus information and take it serious..... that is your choice. I choose to follow C-Span and get the news straight up without all the filters in the media.
BTW: The head of the CIA in 98 (after the inspectors were thrown out) claimed Iraq was a threat. Clinton bombed away, Conservatives cried, "He is only drawing the media away from Lewinski and the scandals, he can't justify these bombongs!" Subsequently public pressure along with conservative pressure stopped the bombing. Don't get me wrong here, I support conservative ideas and politics when the issue at hand warrants it.
Did you watch the head of CIA at the senate hearing within a week of the Iraq resolution vote in October of 2002? The head of the CIA stated very clearly that there is no proof that Iraq is an immediate threat! He went on to say, In the future, 3 to 5 years, "maybe, there is a good chance".
See the parrallel between Ritters and the head of the CIA's opnion.... I am sure the footage of the recent CIA statement is on file at C-span.com
They both did a 180.
Sorry this off topic again but I dropped this after Tidesters post #9370 but it was brought up again subsequently.
BTW, the CRV handled the snow this morning like a champ!
Unless it is unveiled that Saddam gave Ritter a new CR-V or that Fox News gave Honda a contract to get a fleet of CR-V's for its news team I don't see the point of all of this in an SUV forum. While I like to keep up on world events, I don't come to a car forum to do it! Let's give this off-topic stuff the heave-ho and get back to the CR-V! I would suggest some other possible forums for this Saddam-Ritter discussion but that is a no-no. Either way, this ain't the place for this discussion.
I agree with you this is a CRV room. Some things were brought up and sometimes things in these rooms get off topic. Not this off topic, but off topic.
In my opinion: In fairness to those who disagree with me, they should be allowed one rebuttal then I think this issue should be dropped or taken elsewhere.
I have used 87 octane in my CRV's since 1998 and I never used anything above 87. To my understanding, if you use a higher octane the timing of the engine wont be matched with the fuel correctly. So it may not give you the cost saving features one might expect.
Some people claim it does increase performance, I can't vouch for that because I have never tried.
Slow43 - Just for fun I tried several (about 3) gas tanks of 87 then calculated the mpg; followed that with several tanks of 89 (I use Sunoco which offers 87, 89, 92, 94 octane). I was planning to look for an optimum in mpg versus cost, but was surprised to see no difference between 87 and 89 octane. I didn't finish the study. There were several variables beyond my control, such as age of vehicle (coming off break-in, weather conditions).
I've always used 87, though almost went higher when some engine knock started. I replaced the spark plugs with platinum and threw in a K&N air filter which got rid of the knock and raised MPG by 1.5 to 2.
As another data point on prices, I purchased my '03 for $21,700. I had set out to buy an '02 at the middle of last month and had a low offer of $21,350 but decided to go with the '03 for a little more.
My friend just got a 60k regular scheduled maintenance and was charged $550! I don't remember mine costing that much. How much have you all been paying???
I would have to say that the Duelers would have been a 2 or 3 on your noise scale (with 1 being very noisy) and the Michelin harmonies a 5 or 6. On moderately grooved pavement the tires have quieted enough to "allow" the engine noise to be heard. But I don't have much objective basis for comparison.
I just paid $247 (minus 10% coupon and plus tax) for my 30K check here in the Denver area.
Not that it is a good comparison for the rest of the country, but my 2000 EX runs just fine with 85 octane gas at 5000 feet elevation. I have experimented with higher grades (85 is the "standard" with 91 the premium) and found a slight increase in MPG, but not enough to justify the extra cost per gallon
As I recall, the lower the octane the higher the energy content, and therefore, the greater the gas mileage (until preignition occurs). Octane is simply the "anti-knock" quality ... the higher the octane number the higher the compression ratio tolerated before preignition occurs.
Moral to the story, as long as it doesn't knock, for the highest gas mileage, go with the lowest octane.
The higher the Octane number, the greater the resistance to knock (pre-ignite). High compression or forced induction are reasons an engine would require a high octane fuel.
The CR-V is designed to run on 87 octane. You will see no benefit from a higher octane fuel. Save your money.
Comments
Actually, I had the reverse reaction. I was more skeptical of Bush's Iraq "policy" before I heard Scott Ritter.
tidester, host
Really?
Do you not find Ritter credible?
For me it isn't Ritter alone that has made me a little skeptical.... it includes liberals and conservatives that have eluded to such skeptism not too mention most world leaders.
Including...
-Pat Buchanan (whom calls this policy neo-conservative)
-Dick Army (whom up to the last few days opposed Bush)
-the late Paul Wellstone
-most other countries
to name a very few....
(However, this is my first winter with my 2000 EX so I can't compare the performance with that of the Duelers)
I did look at the Yokahoma touring and Aegis LS4. I decided against the Touring because of their lower snow traction as rated from Consumer reports. I decided against the Aegis LS4 because I could only get them by special order from local stores or Tirerack and didn't want to go through the hassle of ordering a new one if one was damaged. I paid $95 each for the Harmonies.
Lok888 - Could you please elaborate on post 9352. I have no idea what you mean. Thanks.
Steve - Not to discredit Toyota (I fully expect that they will try to make that goal), but 2012 is a long way off and such a statement is really just PR. A lot can happen in that time. Not long ago Ford promised to raise the fuel economy of their truck fleet by 25%. A bad set of tires and one reckless CEO later... and they can't afford to do it.
Steve, Host
Not at all. His position has changed exactly 180° with said change occuring after he was out of the intelligence loop. When he had the facts he espoused one thing and when he doesn't have the facts he espouses the opposite. Don't you find that strange? Also, as a guest of the Iraqi government his credibility becomes even more strained.
There are good reasons to be skeptical of the Bush policy but Ritter is most certainly not one of them.
tidester, host
:-)
tidester, host
I am not sure I follow you.... please explain his 180.
Ritter said there are weapons left in 98, today he says there still are weapons left. He believes there are alternatives to a full out war with Iraq.
In addition he was a visitor of the Iraqi government, the same as those congressmen who went over there. Ritter was sponsored by peace groups in the United States, not the Iraqi government. If Ritter was paid by the Iraqi gov't then I am sure the US intelligence would point that out and would seize him immediately.
19 of the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, they caused 3,000 deaths last year. I think Saudi Arabia is more of a threat. Oh, I almost forgot, if we attacked Saudi Arabia they would pull out of our markets. They currently have 200 billion dollars in our market.
What is that our priority?
I am considering the same move on my '02. Now let me ask you, and please answer as honestly and un-biased as you possibly can, on a scale of 1-10, 1 = original loud road noise and 10 = cadillac plush quietness, where would you place the Harmony?
Thanks!
lok888,
I have seen the RAV4 EV vehicle in NYC and Boston, I think the price tag on them is pushing high, getting close to 40 grand!!!
Not exactly economical!
XC90 at $45000 it should be.Now for us poor folks
how about an umder $25000 SUV shootout.Just because you can lease a $45000 car,should you?
He used to say Iraq is a grave threat. He now contends Iraq is not threat. That is a 180!
Back on topic: Which SUV would arms inspectors choose? :-)
tidester, host
A fleet of Honda CRV's of course!
Now how did I KNOW you were going to say that? ;-)
tidester, host
Sooooooo... Don't hold your breath for a V6 or hybrid. I think any SE would include things like nicer trim, upgraded seats (maybe heated leather?), better audio, and other add-on stuff... already in production in non-USA models.
Just a guess!
Frankly, I think Honda is quite happy with the demand the CR-V still has, especially as the Escape & Vue are SIGNIFICANTLY better values, with the special deals.
My hunch is that the Liberty's sales numbers are the only disappointment in the whole "kinda small" ute group....
Mjsnd80 - Absolutely. There is potential for a power boost (maybe 180hp), but certainly not a V6. Most SE additions will be cosmetic or just extra gadgets.
What should this cost?
thanks.
Steve, Host
Steve, Host
If Fox News was correct then Ritter would be in jail right now for treason.
We could get it less in Tulsa, OK. ($22,280 or little bits less...)
It's red (that I wanted) and we only waited one day for delivery.
I have not seen the car yet.
(The car and my husband are in NY.)
He says so far no problem...
oh, he took the center rear seat head-rest, otherwise he cannot get good rear view.(that's he said.)
It will be my car, he can keeps his fancy Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD. ( I don't like the ride, it gives me back ache. Also the mileage is terrible, best highway was 15.3mpg.)
I will see MY CR-V this Friday...yeah!!!
Probably a random problem, sorry to hear about it. How much will it run you???
I am not sure that is true though I don't know the details of the financing.
tidester, host
Ok, foxnews and its pundits (pretty much cable news in general) have been notorious for mis-reporting things. Look at the energy crisis the summer before the 2000 elections, Gov. Davis has created an energy crisis! Crisis! Crisis! All the hour long reports and such pretty much maid Gov. Davis look to be the reason for the crisis.
Accepted by everyone today, Enron created a demand problem so they could profit, one part of their huge scandal. Watch C-SPAN for news, watch Foxnews and other cable news take it as a grain of salt. If you don't take it with a grain of salt you might as well be watching a mid-morning talk show like "Jerry Springer" or read the tabloids. Pundits are paid opinionist who have their own motivation.
If I go and search the internet I will find that Bush and Israel created the 911 attacks to profit from it fininacially and politically. You know what??? That IS complete Bull #@#$@ and isn't true, we all know that! Of course he didn't do such a thing. So go surf the net and find bogus information and take it serious..... that is your choice. I choose to follow C-Span and get the news straight up without all the filters in the media.
BTW: The head of the CIA in 98 (after the inspectors were thrown out) claimed Iraq was a threat. Clinton bombed away, Conservatives cried, "He is only drawing the media away from Lewinski and the scandals, he can't justify these bombongs!" Subsequently public pressure along with conservative pressure stopped the bombing. Don't get me wrong here, I support conservative ideas and politics when the issue at hand warrants it.
Did you watch the head of CIA at the senate hearing within a week of the Iraq resolution vote in October of 2002? The head of the CIA stated very clearly that there is no proof that Iraq is an immediate threat! He went on to say, In the future, 3 to 5 years, "maybe, there is a good chance".
See the parrallel between Ritters and the head of the CIA's opnion.... I am sure the footage of the recent CIA statement is on file at C-span.com
They both did a 180.
Sorry this off topic again but I dropped this after Tidesters post #9370 but it was brought up again subsequently.
BTW, the CRV handled the snow this morning like a champ!
Slow
I agree with you this is a CRV room. Some things were brought up and sometimes things in these rooms get off topic. Not this off topic, but off topic.
In my opinion: In fairness to those who disagree with me, they should be allowed one rebuttal then I think this issue should be dropped or taken elsewhere.
I have used 87 octane in my CRV's since 1998 and I never used anything above 87. To my understanding, if you use a higher octane the timing of the engine wont be matched with the fuel correctly. So it may not give you the cost saving features one might expect.
Some people claim it does increase performance, I can't vouch for that because I have never tried.
Slow43 - The CR-V's engine is not designed to take advantage of higher octane fuel.
My friend just got a 60k regular scheduled maintenance and was charged $550! I don't remember mine costing that much. How much have you all been paying???
I just paid $247 (minus 10% coupon and plus tax) for my 30K check here in the Denver area.
Not that it is a good comparison for the rest of the country, but my 2000 EX runs just fine with 85 octane gas at 5000 feet elevation.
Moral to the story, as long as it doesn't knock, for the highest gas mileage, go with the lowest octane.
Of course, I could be wrong :-)
The CR-V is designed to run on 87 octane. You will see no benefit from a higher octane fuel. Save your money.