I think the Racoon did a fairly good job of researching. The numbers are black and white. That is, unless the CR-V is genuine, but the trailer was painted into the pic. :-)
Maybe we can start a pool with alternate projections, and whoever comes closest will win...something? One more projection: The wheels in the photo appear to be steel wheels. I think they are the LX version new wheels. I believe they are 15 X 6. I think the EXversion will get 16 X 6 Alloys. How close will I come to the truth? Let's wait & see....
One way to judge is to realize that the relative size difference between almost all vehicles today is measured in inches. Most manufacturers have very competitive vehicle dimensions in each category of vehicle. There are no hard and fast vehicle size rules, however. For example, if you look at the Pathfinder, Passport, 4 Runner, Axiom, Mitsubishi Sport, Grand Cherokee, etc,etc. you will find they are all within inches of each other dimensionally. I figure that the new CRV will be just a tad smaller than the RX-300/Toyota Highlander. Amazingly, Honda will be competing in a different size category with the new CRV, and if they don't raise the price that much, it may turn out to be the biggest bargain out there in SUV's
My money is on the new CRV going for 22-25 loaded. Anything above that and you're priced out of the market. Also, there is no leather option for the 2002 CR-V, so that will cuts down on options cost.
Also, I'd say that the prediction of a 106 inch WB on the CR-V is a bit too big. That would make it almost as large as soem of the mid-sized SUV's out there. Couple that to the prediction of a 3500 curb weight and you are talking about a vehicle that is almost as heavy as the Jeep Liberty. but without a V-6 and missing close to 60 HP. I can only imagine how bad the acceleration would be.
Finally, I'd also agree that the photo does look a bit like the Escape or maybe even the Exploder.
I'm curious about that trailer. I bet that's a Class II trailer. I checked out the Haulmark site, and even their small trailers are rated just under 3000 pounds.
I think it looks like a Honda Tribute. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though, the Tribute is handsome. Mainly in the C- and D-pillars.
The front end looks nice. It seems a lot taller more than anything. More substantial (looking).
I like the roof - those will serve as rain rails, too. Looks like the Forester, except it sticks out much more. It needs cross bars standard to give it a balanced look. Foresters look goofy without them, too.
Am I the only one that likes it? Lose the tiny steel rims and keep it light. I bet the wheelbase is about the same and length is only 1 or 2 inches longer.
varmit: no fair putting Forester and Aztec in the same paragraph. ;-)
Also, I believe the Santa Fe has a 4 speed auto, not 5, though it does offer manual shift control. The Kia minivan does get a 5 speed, however.
Michael: I was away, so sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, my Forester has been very reliable. I have only visited the dealer once in 40k miles, and that was for a recall (I do all my own maintenance).
I like it too—so far... But as you know, the devil is in the details. We need specifics!
Honda obviously didn't stray too far (visually) from the successful original CRV gameplan. I'm hoping there is more substance (capability!) with the new model. A large trailer being towed indicates that "could" be the case. I sure hope so...
Juice - I was wondering when you were going to notice that. :-)
I like the design. I'm disappointed that it doesn't seem to share some of the styling charactersitics from the drawing we saw earlier, but I'm not heartbroken. Some folks seem to be taking this picture as a personal affront their Honda-biased sensibililties. To me, it looks like the current model with a few tweaks here and there. The only thing I don't like are the roof rails. I'm willing to bet that it will look very different when seen in person.
I also have doubts that this is the production version. A number of things like foglamps, painted bumpers, a real roof rack, spare tire location, rear tail lights, and different body cladding could be changed or added to this vehicle before final production. It's the best pic we've seen so far, but I wouldn't tell Regis it's my final answer.
I doubt it's going to do well if it's as big as Shellymeister thinks. Unless Honda has serious plans about going after the Highlander, that size doesn't make sense. What will the Passport replacement compete with? The Hummer?
The front appears to have a mini-bra/mask on it, so it's really difficult to see any of the front bumper details. Also, I don't think it really is much larger than the current model. I'm sure it's a bit larger, but I'd be very surprised if the wheelbase is over 104." I doubt very much if it's sized like the Highlander.
OK, got my hands on the original photo, so I'll try to make some detailed observations:
The headlights are masked by grey vinyl stickers on top, but underneath they are the ones we saw at that preview web site. They are bigger and pulled back more than the current ones.
The hood has two creases leading into the toothy chrome grille, and the Honda emblem is covered with black tape.
The bumpers look similar to the current one. There is more black vinyl tape around the grille, but you can tell what it's going to look like.
The C-pillar changes shape a bit. There appears to be a kink near the bottom, ala RSX but milder. The D pillar appears much thicker, so watch for blind spots. The B pillar is blacked out, but it could be tape. The taillights - you can barely tell - are red on the bottom and yellow/orange on top. The sides look kind of slab, i.e. flat, all the way up to the roof rails.
The photo is left hand drive. This is your CR-V folks. The inside headrests appear to be solid, not like the current ones with holes in them.
It seems like it's squatting under acceleration, and the front is lifting, so it may not be as tall as it seems. The underside looks clean, so expect good ground clearance.
Also, there appears to be less glass. It might lose some of the airy feeling of the current model. All the glass starts higher up on the vehicle. The side mirrors look bigger.
Oddly, the roof rails have no handles or holes. They are right on the edge of the sides, so this should keep rain from dripping in when you open your window.
If I had to guess, the tires are the same old 205/70R15s. The wheels are 5 spoke steel.
you get the original photo? Do you have that issue of Automotive News in hand? The tires appear to be wider than 205, perhaps 215 or 225? I do think they are 15" rims though.
Honda does not use wide tires, that's in general. Plus they were using BF Goodrich tires and I doubt that will change (the Civic uses Firestones, and they don't want bad PR).
Juice - The pictured 'V is squatting under the weight of a trailer, not acceleration. I hope it's not accelerating, I don't see a driver!
Tires might be whatever they had on the shelf. Same with the rims. The production model might wear something completely different.
I think the roof rails are just rails, not the actual rack. Kinda like those roof bumps on the Outback. They're just a mounting point for the real rack.
There is some masking on the front bumper, but not the whole thing. On the left side of the pic, you can see the "hole" for accessory fog lamps.
Kens - I've often thought that the ML looked a bit like the current CR-V. The short front end, blacked out B pillar, and other bits are similar. It's the grill that makes a big difference.
Remember that other CR-V photo that everyone thought was fake? I'm looking at it on another website and comparing it the one here---they're exactly the same. Honda is being very cautious with the new CR-V.
I think it looks like an Escape/Tribute. If they can get rid of the rear mounted spare, it would surely be another best seller.
that posting copyrighted pictures is a no-no. Consequently, I've had to remove the post with the '02 CR-V spy picture. Please post links instead, such as the following:
CR-V's specification in Japan's website is only abstract. There's no concrete specification given. It only describes the 2002 model as: 1. VTEC engine 2. More Space 3. Low Mileage 4. High Safety They will publish a full specification on August 20th.
) I got this information from a Japanese friend of mine. )
I hope your friend meant to say something like "low fuel consumption" or "high mileage per gallon." I am going to make the bold prediction that brand new '02 CR-V's are going to come out of the factory with "low mileage" on them.
My (GM trade in) had a overhead consol,equipted with a outside temp guage. I have seen a couple of after market guages(JC Whitney). I wonder where they are mounting the temp sender,has anyone installed a aftermarket guage.
From what I've read so far, no one mentioned the likeness or similarities to the Suzuki XL-7.
Maybe Honda will freak us all by introducing 7 passenger seating. We've seen how immensely popular the 7 seating Odyssey has become (and still is).
And I do wish the styling was a bit more daring and less dulling. :-) When I first saw the 1997 CR-V, I was really wowed by the styling, but then the CR-V was a bit more exclusive in the class. Now, with so many mini-utes competing for our money, I believe Honda should've taken bolder styling approaches, i.e. S2000.
I'm happy that the photo has generated such a huge response. Thank you Varmit for helping me get the photo online. I agree with the thought that the new CRV very loosely resembles the MB ML320. I think this is due to the black raised roof rails- very similar in design & look to the Benz. I feel the weight of the new CRV will not be exorbitant even with a substantial increase in size. WHY? Because, unlike many truck-based SUV's, the CRV is built on a CAR chassis. Body on frame construction, like the X-Terra, is much heavier than Unibody construction. The current CRV weighs only 3245 lbs. Compare that to the VW Beetle that weighs close to 3000 lbs. With modern computer design techniques, Honda could keep the weight increase to minimum. I don't remember if I posted an opinion about the visibility of the rear suspension from following vehicles. I'm sure you are all aware how visible the current rear suspension appears when you are behind one. I find it interesting, but cheap looking. it looks like Honda has addressed this issue by extending the body lower than the rear bumper. I think it will be effective as well as making the vehicle look more polished & complete.
That's what I'm hoping for! I think it's rational. The CR-V is based on the new Civic, the Japanese Honda Stream is also based on the Civic. If the Stream can fit 7 seats in, I think the CR-V could also do this. If that becomes a reality, I just hope the 3rd row isn't as bad as the one in the Suzuki. I don't expect an adult to fit back there, but there should be at least legroom for even little kids. That is why I didn't jump for the Suzuki.
If you want to see a Video Road Test of the Honda Stream online, go to Carpoint.com and go to their UK site. Go to the reviews section and look for Video reviews. There are a number of them. You're right, the Honda Stream has an amazing amount of space inside a very compact body. It would be fascinating if Honda surprised us with seating for 7. Maybe they will surprise us with a 175-180 hp engine also!
I'm with holding judgement until I see the final undisguised production model.The technical specs as always will be fine. But if two creases to the hood is the culmination of 5 plus years of design work, I suggest we all chip in and buy VARMIT a business class ticket to Japan...and have him give Honda a piece of our minds.
The scanned-in (and probably already deleted due to copyright reasons) article on another site looks to be from a Brit magazine, has a different CR-V photo from the one previously shown here on edmunds, but still with the HaulMark trailer attached, so it is probably the same vehicle. The article also has another photo of the CR-V going down the road, and shows the spare mounted on the door. The article says 2.0L, 154 bhp, built in Britain, and available there in Spring 2002!
if the CRV is offered with different engines for different markets. The UK and Europe could very well get a 2.0L engine, while North America gets a 2.4L engine.
Apparently a Haulmark (lower case "m" in the photo) trailer will come standard with the new CR-V. ;-)
I noticed one other thing - the antennae moves from the driver side A-pillar to the passenger side hood. I bet this makes production, because there is no camo on the A-pillar.
Varmit: actually, it's very hard to tell, but there are shadows in the interior that look like a person driving it. Also, a close look at the tires in the original shows that the tread is not visible, so it actually does appear to be moving (and if so I certainly HOPE there is someone behind the wheel).
Here's their link. Unfortunately, it's not current. The CRV images much be in the September print issue. Their link is for the August issue. I would think it will be updated shortly, if the print issue is already out. As they say, please stay tuned...
... going to www.rav4world.com, click on the most current '01 RAV Forum, and look for a very recent post from Scott Cummings called something like "New CR-V pics". It was still shown there a minute ago (12:10pm EDT). Good luck. ejp
Well, I think my thoughts about this not being a production model are unfounded. Either they have a paint shop handy or that is a different vehicle than the one in the first pic. And yes, Juice, It does look like a trailer is standard equipment. :-)
Observations: Rear lights look different than the ones on the Japanese site. The roof rails look more integrated from these angles. 154 hp is exactly the same output as the Stream, which has 141 ft.lbs. It looks like the license plate is mounted low and on the bumper (like the UK CR-V). There also appears to be something (handle?) where the plate mounted on the old one. The spare is in the same position and not any lower. The tires look to me like 15's. Maybe there will be a larger option. It does seem a little longer in the wheelbase.
Looking at the colors of the background and of the trailer I'd speculate that the color difference of the 2 supposed 2002 CR-V pictures might be due to color shift in developing, printing, or scanning.
In the newer large image of the vehicle on the road showing the trailer everything looks too green. And compare it to the second, small shot the color of the vehicle shifts from a silver-blue to silver-white.
Looking at the older image of the vehicle parked with the trailer it's more washed out. Compare the yellow/orange of the front turn signals with the newer pictures.
Also note the same sticker on the left side windshield and the same type of CB antenna on top.
Also, in both pictures there is a small strip of body color showing below the left headlight below whatever is masking the front of vehicle.
I agree, they're the same. I also thought the roof rails look better integrated from that 2nd angle.
Looks like ground clearance will be better. The whole car seems to sit an inch or two higher.
The hatch still looks like it will open curb side instead of to traffic. And while it's a British magazine, they're driving on the right side of the road, so the photo must've been taken in the US also.
If the 2.0l makes 154hp, I'm thinking this might be the standard engine. They certainly could use a different engine, but the 2.0l is a possibility. Remember, Honda said the new Civic would have "world class torque" and it gained something like a whopping 7 lb-ft.
It looked real. And when varmit was talking about the taillights, I didn't know what he was saying cause they looked exactly like the ones from the Honda Japanese website.
Then I realized that the ones from the Japanese website ran all the way down to the bumper, and these did not. And the rear spare does look a lot lower on the Japanese website, while this one is in the same location as the current model.
But looking at the picture, I could not find anything that would give it off as being photoshopped. If you don't know what I mean, check out Vince Burlapp's website for "spy shots."
This is definitely a pre-production test mule. It has to be. Either that or someone has a lot of time on his hand and is using it to photoshop a 2001 CR-V with infinite detailingto fool us into thinking it's a 2002.
I dunno about the color wash. Maybe it's because I'm seeing scanned images, but the first one looked like a champagne or possibly the naples gold with a good coat of dust. These new pics look like a silvery blue. Earlier rumors stated that Honda would be introducing a "mist blue" color with the new model. My guess is that this is it.
Diploid - I don't think the tail lights on the teaser pics go all the way to the bumper, but they did extend beyond the hatch glass. That doesn't seem to be the case with this new pic. Some folks at the CR-V IX are seeing a film or something covering the lower part of the lights. Maybe it does extend down that far.
I give up. We're all looking at the same photo and seeing something completely different! :-)
Comments
http://www.haulmark.com/h416.htm
I think the Racoon did a fairly good job of researching. The numbers are black and white. That is, unless the CR-V is genuine, but the trailer was painted into the pic. :-)
2001 Wheelbase: 103" 2002: 106.5"
2001 Length: 177.6" 2002: 186.7"
2001 Width: 68.9" 2002: 72.8"
2001 Track: 60.4" 2002: 62.9"
2001 Height: 65.9" 2002: 67.6"
2001 Weight: 3245 lb 2002: 3467 lb
Maybe we can start a pool with alternate projections, and whoever comes closest will win...something?
One more projection: The wheels in the photo appear to be steel wheels. I think they are the LX version new wheels. I believe they are 15 X 6. I think the EXversion will get 16 X 6 Alloys. How close will I come to the truth? Let's wait & see....
And if you look carefully just to left of the rear wheel and just below the side steps you can see the 2 safety chains.
And at least to me, the rear end seems to be sagging (maybe the tongue weight is too great).
you will find they are all within inches of each other dimensionally. I figure that the new CRV will be just a tad smaller than the RX-300/Toyota Highlander. Amazingly, Honda will be competing in a different size category with the new CRV, and if they don't raise the price that much, it may turn out to be the biggest bargain out there in SUV's
Also, I'd say that the prediction of a 106 inch WB on the CR-V is a bit too big. That would make it almost as large as soem of the mid-sized SUV's out there. Couple that to the prediction of a 3500 curb weight and you are talking about a vehicle that is almost as heavy as the Jeep Liberty. but without a V-6 and missing close to 60 HP. I can only imagine how bad the acceleration would be.
Finally, I'd also agree that the photo does look a bit like the Escape or maybe even the Exploder.
http://www.haulmark.com/fhp.htm
I'm hoping that Honda has upped the trailering capacity of the new model.
Bob
The front end looks nice. It seems a lot taller more than anything. More substantial (looking).
I like the roof - those will serve as rain rails, too. Looks like the Forester, except it sticks out much more. It needs cross bars standard to give it a balanced look. Foresters look goofy without them, too.
Am I the only one that likes it? Lose the tiny steel rims and keep it light. I bet the wheelbase is about the same and length is only 1 or 2 inches longer.
varmit: no fair putting Forester and Aztec in the same paragraph. ;-)
Also, I believe the Santa Fe has a 4 speed auto, not 5, though it does offer manual shift control. The Kia minivan does get a 5 speed, however.
Michael: I was away, so sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, my Forester has been very reliable. I have only visited the dealer once in 40k miles, and that was for a recall (I do all my own maintenance).
-juice
Honda obviously didn't stray too far (visually) from the successful original CRV gameplan. I'm hoping there is more substance (capability!) with the new model. A large trailer being towed indicates that "could" be the case. I sure hope so...
Bob
I like the design. I'm disappointed that it doesn't seem to share some of the styling charactersitics from the drawing we saw earlier, but I'm not heartbroken. Some folks seem to be taking this picture as a personal affront their Honda-biased sensibililties. To me, it looks like the current model with a few tweaks here and there. The only thing I don't like are the roof rails. I'm willing to bet that it will look very different when seen in person.
I also have doubts that this is the production version. A number of things like foglamps, painted bumpers, a real roof rack, spare tire location, rear tail lights, and different body cladding could be changed or added to this vehicle before final production. It's the best pic we've seen so far, but I wouldn't tell Regis it's my final answer.
I doubt it's going to do well if it's as big as Shellymeister thinks. Unless Honda has serious plans about going after the Highlander, that size doesn't make sense. What will the Passport replacement compete with? The Hummer?
Bob
I think the size will change by about 1/4 of Shelley's predictions, i.e. very slightly bigger.
-juice
The headlights are masked by grey vinyl stickers on top, but underneath they are the ones we saw at that preview web site. They are bigger and pulled back more than the current ones.
The hood has two creases leading into the toothy chrome grille, and the Honda emblem is covered with black tape.
The bumpers look similar to the current one. There is more black vinyl tape around the grille, but you can tell what it's going to look like.
The C-pillar changes shape a bit. There appears to be a kink near the bottom, ala RSX but milder. The D pillar appears much thicker, so watch for blind spots. The B pillar is blacked out, but it could be tape. The taillights - you can barely tell - are red on the bottom and yellow/orange on top. The sides look kind of slab, i.e. flat, all the way up to the roof rails.
The photo is left hand drive. This is your CR-V folks. The inside headrests appear to be solid, not like the current ones with holes in them.
It seems like it's squatting under acceleration, and the front is lifting, so it may not be as tall as it seems. The underside looks clean, so expect good ground clearance.
Also, there appears to be less glass. It might lose some of the airy feeling of the current model. All the glass starts higher up on the vehicle. The side mirrors look bigger.
Oddly, the roof rails have no handles or holes. They are right on the edge of the sides, so this should keep rain from dripping in when you open your window.
If I had to guess, the tires are the same old 205/70R15s. The wheels are 5 spoke steel.
The driver just ate at Hot Stuff Pizza. :-)
Wow, a picture really is worth 1000 words.
-juice
Bob
The right front tire is in the shadow, but it looks awful narrow to me.
Let me take a shot at scanning this bad boy. I'll see if it comes out any better.
Back in 5 minutes...
-juice
OK, new photos it up. I won't paste it here since modem users will suffer slow access, but just click on this link to see it full size.
The quality may be a little better (it's easier on my screen to read the sign on the trailer), but still not quite like the original.
-juice
Bob
Honda does not use wide tires, that's in general. Plus they were using BF Goodrich tires and I doubt that will change (the Civic uses Firestones, and they don't want bad PR).
-juice
Bob
I agree. The looks aren't disappointing. The changes have been done very conservatively a la Honda.
Does anyone think the latest photo makes the CR-V resemble a M-Class a bit?
Ken
Tires might be whatever they had on the shelf. Same with the rims. The production model might wear something completely different.
I think the roof rails are just rails, not the actual rack. Kinda like those roof bumps on the Outback. They're just a mounting point for the real rack.
There is some masking on the front bumper, but not the whole thing. On the left side of the pic, you can see the "hole" for accessory fog lamps.
Kens - I've often thought that the ML looked a bit like the current CR-V. The short front end, blacked out B pillar, and other bits are similar. It's the grill that makes a big difference.
I think it looks like an Escape/Tribute. If they can get rid of the rear mounted spare, it would surely be another best seller.
http://home.earthlink.net/~bingsc/temp/2002_crv.jpg
Thanks!
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
P.S. The picture looks pretty real to me. Brenda Priddy is pretty good at capturing authentic pictures and selling them to magazines.
1. VTEC engine
2. More Space
3. Low Mileage
4. High Safety
They will publish a full specification on August 20th.
Maybe Honda will freak us all by introducing 7 passenger seating. We've seen how immensely popular the 7 seating Odyssey has become (and still is).
And I do wish the styling was a bit more daring and less dulling. :-) When I first saw the 1997 CR-V, I was really wowed by the styling, but then the CR-V was a bit more exclusive in the class. Now, with so many mini-utes competing for our money, I believe Honda should've taken bolder styling approaches, i.e. S2000.
my .02 cents.
I agree with the thought that the new CRV very loosely resembles the MB ML320. I think this is due to the black raised roof rails- very similar in design & look to the Benz.
I feel the weight of the new CRV will not be exorbitant even with a substantial increase in size. WHY? Because, unlike many truck-based SUV's, the CRV is built on a CAR chassis. Body on frame construction, like the X-Terra, is much heavier than Unibody construction. The current CRV weighs only 3245 lbs. Compare that to the VW Beetle that weighs close to 3000 lbs. With modern computer design techniques, Honda could keep the weight increase to minimum.
I don't remember if I posted an opinion about the visibility of the rear suspension from following vehicles. I'm sure you are all aware how visible the current rear suspension appears when you are behind one. I find it interesting, but cheap looking. it looks like Honda has addressed this issue by extending the body lower than the rear bumper. I think it will be effective as well as making the vehicle look more polished & complete.
You're right, the Honda Stream has an amazing amount of space inside a very compact body.
It would be fascinating if Honda surprised us with seating for 7. Maybe they will surprise us with a 175-180 hp engine also!
The article says 2.0L, 154 bhp, built in Britain, and available there in Spring 2002!
BTW, what UK magazine were you referring to?
Bob
I noticed one other thing - the antennae moves from the driver side A-pillar to the passenger side hood. I bet this makes production, because there is no camo on the A-pillar.
Varmit: actually, it's very hard to tell, but there are shadows in the interior that look like a person driving it. Also, a close look at the tires in the original shows that the tread is not visible, so it actually does appear to be moving (and if so I certainly HOPE there is someone behind the wheel).
-juice
http://www.autozine.co.nz/home.asp
Bob
Good luck.
ejp
But build quality is far superior. Body panel gaps seem to be very tight, like in the new Civics. I could live without the step rails, though.
Here's links to the actual images (2):
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/src/2002CRV_1.JPG
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/src/2002CRV_2.JPG
btw, any opinion about the reliability of the
i-vtec engines?
Observations: Rear lights look different than the ones on the Japanese site. The roof rails look more integrated from these angles. 154 hp is exactly the same output as the Stream, which has 141 ft.lbs. It looks like the license plate is mounted low and on the bumper (like the UK CR-V). There also appears to be something (handle?) where the plate mounted on the old one. The spare is in the same position and not any lower. The tires look to me like 15's. Maybe there will be a larger option. It does seem a little longer in the wheelbase.
Looking at the colors of the background and of the trailer I'd speculate that the color difference of the 2 supposed 2002 CR-V pictures might be due to color shift in developing, printing, or scanning.
In the newer large image of the vehicle on the road showing the trailer everything looks too green. And compare it to the second, small shot the color of the vehicle shifts from a silver-blue to silver-white.
Looking at the older image of the vehicle parked with the trailer it's more washed out. Compare the yellow/orange of the front turn signals with the newer pictures.
Also note the same sticker on the left side windshield and the same type of CB antenna on top.
Also, in both pictures there is a small strip of body color showing below the left headlight below whatever is masking the front of vehicle.
I think they're the same vehicle.
JM2C
Looks like ground clearance will be better. The whole car seems to sit an inch or two higher.
The hatch still looks like it will open curb side instead of to traffic. And while it's a British magazine, they're driving on the right side of the road, so the photo must've been taken in the US also.
If the 2.0l makes 154hp, I'm thinking this might be the standard engine. They certainly could use a different engine, but the 2.0l is a possibility. Remember, Honda said the new Civic would have "world class torque" and it gained something like a whopping 7 lb-ft.
-juice
Then I realized that the ones from the Japanese website ran all the way down to the bumper, and these did not. And the rear spare does look a lot lower on the Japanese website, while this one is in the same location as the current model.
But looking at the picture, I could not find anything that would give it off as being photoshopped. If you don't know what I mean, check out Vince Burlapp's website for "spy shots."
This is definitely a pre-production test mule. It has to be. Either that or someone has a lot of time on his hand and is using it to photoshop a 2001 CR-V with infinite detailingto fool us into thinking it's a 2002.
Diploid - I don't think the tail lights on the teaser pics go all the way to the bumper, but they did extend beyond the hatch glass. That doesn't seem to be the case with this new pic. Some folks at the CR-V IX are seeing a film or something covering the lower part of the lights. Maybe it does extend down that far.
I give up. We're all looking at the same photo and seeing something completely different! :-)