Long time, no see, Spy. Your timed your lease perfectly, given the new models arriving at about that time. You like the Spy photos? (pardon the pun)
The Vue is supposed to get 30/35 mpg? Wow, you sure? That must be with the 4 cylinder and the CVT.
The L series sedan with the same 4 banger and a manual gets 25/33, and it's lighter and more aerodynamic. I would expect 22/30 or so, maybe 21/28 with AWD.
Honda moved assembly of the Accords to the US without any damage to their reliability record, so I don't see why they can't do the same in the UK. It would be hard to measure, though, if they send both UK and Japan-built models here.
1. Do I pay the residual on my CR-V and keep it? 2. Do I turn it in and get a 2002 CR-V? 3. Do I look into alternatives?
I haven't done too much research yet on option #1. This would be the economical option for sure: buying a three-yr. old, avg. miles, very reliable (STILL have not had one problem with it) CR-V at a great price. Also, since the trade-in value has held up so well, I'm guessing I could make a little money on it by paying it off and selling it.
Option #2, the jury's still out. The spy shots and preliminary info of the new CR-V have been frankly underwhelming. Unless the power is significantly upgraded, I'm not sure I'd buy another one.
Option #3, there are a lot more choices out there today than there were three years ago, which is a good thing. Back then, at least for me, the choices boiled down to the CR-V and the Forester. Now there are plenty of new entrants, like the Liberty, Xterra, Triscape, etc.
The MDX doesn't have a LSD. VSA is beneficial to all vehicles and not just to reduce the change of rollovers. Several reviews (MotorWeek, Car & Driver, Consumer Reports) have commented on the MDX's tendency to oversteer in emergency situations. MotorWeek found the same behaviour in their slalom runs, as well as their 60-0 mph braking tests. The tailend stepped out, requiring some steering correction. C&D mentioned that it was probably because of the not particularly balanced 58/42% weight distribution.
When you have to make a sudden swerve, the weight transfers forward, and the tail becomes even lighter, causing it to swing out. To the average driver, sudden oversteer often results in an accident. There is no AWD system than can compensate for it like a stability control system (which as you know, uses brakes and throttle modulation).
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
I don't know...There is some fuziness on the front end and the back end doesn't have a bumper that runs up higher....Hmm, I don't know.
If it is the real thing, then Honda might as well call it a mechanical redesign and minor bosdy restyling. Of course, isn't that pretty much Honda's SOP?
Drew's right. It's another paint job. That one got passed around at the CR-V IX a few weeks ago. It fooled me until folks started pointing out the spots where the image was manufactured. Take a look at the rear bumper and the rear glass. It becomes more obvious when you start looking at it closely.
On another copy of that same pic there is a label at the bottom. Someone recognized it as belonging to a Vince Burlap. I guess this guy has done a number of fake spy pics seen in other forums.
The rear quarter windows is a give away. Plus the roof mounted antenna as well. The spy pics (if they're accurate) have much different lines on the vehicle and the antenna is mounted on the front passenger quarter panel... but a nice effort by the "artist" nonetheless.
A thread over on the CR-Vix boards led to the creation of a Honda CR-V Webring. If you have a web site for your CR-V and want to add it to the ring go here, click Join Now:
Trying to decide between a 2001 CR-V (made in Japan) and the 2002 CR-V (conflicting info). Help me out folks. Is it worth waiting for?? Those of you who have the 2001 model, "Are you happy with it?" Robert
I have a 2001 just bought in june. even though i knew about the upcoming 2002 cr-v, i went out and bought the 2001. i didn't like the 2001 civic's move from 6th generation and was affraid that the new cr-v would follow the same route. i am pretty happy with the vehicle, sometimes, when i have 4 passengers i wish it had more horses, other than that it is fine piece of machinery
Unless you need a new car—right now, I'd wait for the '02 model. It's bound to be better than the current one. How much better? We don't know yet.
It can't hurt to wait. You can always pick up a leftover 2001 at a lower price if you don't like the 2002s. The only catch is the selection will be reduced, so you may not find your favorite color.
The C- and D-pillars in that "enhanced" photo look very fake. You can tell there is a black rectangle around it.
I agree with Drew on the value of VSA. Car & Driver took four wagons out in the snow, and 3 out of the 4 plowed into snow banks in their tests. These are professionals, crashing, basically.
The only one that didn't? The Outback VDC, because at the time it did not have an "off" switch for the traction/stability control. It does for 2002, funny enough.
I also saw a live demo at the M-B PowerTrip event. A pro driver took a coupe at 50mph through a slalom and got sideways with the feature turned off.
Then they turned it on and repeated the slalom at 60mph. It was wild, with a quick chirp of the tires here and there, but he made it! 10mph faster!
A well programmed systems allows you to go faster and more safely. I was impressed!
The lastest Car and Driver has more information on the '02 CR-V. It includes a new pic from a front angle. This one appears to have alloy rims, painted mirrors, and perhaps tinted glass. Most folks were happy to see what looks like a sunroof on top.
The article claims 160 HP and 162 ft lbs from a 2.4L 4 cyl. That would help explain the hefty Haulmark trailer we've seen in the other pics.
Slugline posted the image at the CR-V IX, but the quality is poor (photo of a magazine page).
If the power truly is only going to be in the 160 hp range, I'll be seriously looking into alternatives. Lack of oomph is one of the only criticisms I have of my '99 CR-V. Since I got my Acura CL-S last winter, driving the CR-V has become almost painful. An unfair comparison, I know. I guess Honda is waiting for the Honda-badged MDX to have a V6-based SUV. Too bad. A V6-equipped CR-V would fly off the lots IMO.
Not that the 2002 CR-V won't fly off the lots anyway, no matter how they are equipped. It's amazing the previous gen are still selling so well!
Now if they came out with a Type-R CR-V, that would be a different story...
My old college buddy got one and took me for a ride. Nice!
The 2003 Forester is coming soon, so the base 165hp engine may creep up a bit. My guess is it'll get about 170hp with some mild form of variable valve timing.
Plus there will be an upgrade option, probably the H6 or a light pressure turbo for the 2.5l. Either way, it'll have 200hp or more, and likely lead the class in power/weight ratio.
So there would still be room for a CR-V Type R. A V6 is doubtful, but why not VTEC that 2.4l? I bet it would be pretty sweet.
Yeah the CL-S is great. It makes the 60-mile RT commute to my new job much easier to take. The CR-V is my wife's daily driver. Even she, who normally doesn't care much about such things, has started griping recently about the power in the CR-V (I think this was after she drove the CL-S for a few days
I wish some firm info about the new CR-V would come out. If the new CR-V is only going to be in the 160hp range, I will probably not consider it.
That Liberty looks awful nice. I've always been a big Jeep fan, but the scary part is the unknown reliability factor...
I suspect that the 2.4 would be a VTEC block. Whether or not it gets the i-VTEC is another story.
Honda is supposed to have all domestic vehicles meet 2010 emmisions and fuel efficiency specs. They've been saying that the i-VTEC engines are the way to meet that goal. Unless they are going to give us Americans a big block and keep the 2.0 at home (not likely), then I'd guess that the 2.4 would use the same technology.
The 2.0 in the Stream puts out 154 hp. With an extra .4 liters to play with, Honda has some room for tweaking. Since the HP output is only in the 160 range, I'd guess that it's tuned for a very broad torque curve.
I'm still placing any bets on a 2.4 block, though.
Tell me about it. I had a '95 Grand Cherokee, new. The tranny started leaking fluid after a few months and eventually had to be completely replaced. Didn;t have one single problem after that though
I'm hopeful that the new plant DC built for the Liberty will have some effect on quality. The fact that no major reported problems have been reported so far after ~3 months is a good sign (in contrast to the Triscape)
A 160HP engine on the CR-V (assuming it doesn't gain much weight) is great news. I think C&D described it as being "a much needed power boost". That would bring the CR-V closer to where the majority of the other popular miniutes compete today. It would also one-up the RAV4 -- I wonder if Toyota would provide a beefier engine in the future.
the Liberty appears to be a homerun, and a reliable one at that. Granted, it's only been on the market a couple of months, but so I've heard no complaints of any consequence. Owners over on the Liberty forum love their new rides.
Any upgrade to the CR-V's powerplant is good, but frankly I was expecting more than 160. At that rating, it will still be at the back of the pack, besides the RAV4.
The mini-ute market has leap-frogged the CR-V over the past few years in terms of power. With several newer models out there (Escape, Xterra, Liberty) with 200+ hp available, 160 hp seems like kind of a half-hearted effort. I guess until we have solid info, I should reserve judgement!
Spy - The segment also leapfrogged the CR-V in terms of price, weight, and ability to slurp dead dinos. They've even stopped calling them mini-utes and refer to the class as "small utilities". The RAV4 stayed a mini-ute like the GV did in '99, but every other new entrant has been larger, heavier, and more expensive. Suzuki even went back to the drawing board and stretched the GV to keep up.
My guess is Honda is trying to bridge the gap between "mini" and "small". Personally, I believe that is one reason why the CR-V is still selling well. It has the capacity of a small ute, but the economy of a mini. The fact that it lacks the towing power of the 6 cyl competition is a problem, but not one that greatly effects sales.
Yeah you're right. Honda has always marched to the beat of a different drum, emphasizing practicality, reliability and value over the flashiness of other entrants. I think no matter what they do with the new CR-V, it'll be a hit commercially.
My wants and needs are a little different this time around than they were three years ago though. I guess I'm disappointed that Honda doesn't have something out there for me. My spouse and I were actually considering an MDX, but both having fallen victim to Silly Valley layoffs in the past six months, our sights have been re-set lower due to the economic uncertainty. I think the Honda-badged MDX is probably what we want, if only it were gonna be available...
Spy - Why not a Highlander? Just go easy on the options.
I'm in a similar boat (new car interest-wise). When I got the CR-V, I had one dog, a few long legged friends to take camping, and a good deal less cash. Now I've got more of the above. The needs have expanded with two dogs, a group of highschool kids to take everywhere, and I can afford a bit more. The Honda MDX clone would be a better fit if I were buying now.
Well the RAV4 has a low hp rating (despite getting a full redesign just last year) and it's selling awfully well. Guess people will buy just anything with a Toyota badge on it...
160hp for the new CR-V doesn't sound like something to write home about, but I'd like to see some performance numbers also. I remember reading a comparison test from AutoWorld Weekly where they compared a Rav4, CR-V and Tribute (4 cylinder), and the 4-year old CR-V was fastest to 60mph compared to the two newer competitors!
If assuming that 160hp & 160lb-ft torque figures are true, the new CR-V would be 20hp & 40lb-ft torque stronger. I just have a feeling that this would be adequate power for the CR-V to reach 60mph as fast as the V-6 powered Escape.
I was just browsing the headlines from the News section of Edmunds, and there's an article about Condit and Levy. I had no idea that that was auto related news...
I noticed that too, diploid. There's always lots of stuff from across the pond and down under, but it's almost always car-related. I'll mention it to managment (I did wonder if anyone else read the news here ). Steve Host Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Is there a moonroof on that 02 ? I can faintly make out the outline of a moonroof, but color should be darker.
Condit probably used a car to transport the body, yeah. it is car related. Every web site, from cars to finance has Condit and Connie on front page today.
From post #2239: "Well the RAV4 has a low hp rating (despite getting a full redesign just last year) and it's selling awfully well. Guess people will buy just anything with a Toyota badge on it..."
The '01 RAV4 is a very well-done package, giving the feeling of "a sense of total integration", as one magazine reviewer wrote, and "the most fun-to-drive SUV". It is adequately powered in real-world, day-to-day use.
I like the new RAV4 quite a bit. As I've said before, it still looks remote controlled, but it's still nimble, fuel efficient, and well built. While the utility factor is pretty low, the fun to drive factor is high. My biggest complaints about the previous generation were the lack of a back seat and minimal cargo space. While the back seat is still cramped, at least removing them gives you the option for cargo space.
Diploid - That comparison of the RAV4, CR-V, and Tribute doesn't surprise me. While there is reason to complain about torque, the CR-V's acceleration figures have always been pretty good. You just need to rev it. In fact, while the automatic is a bit pokey, the 5 speed CR-V has been clocked at 8.6, 8.9, and 9.1 secs in 0-60 runs. Unless the new model has put on significant weight, those 160's numbers should be adequate.
Without taking anything away from the current CRV, the RAV4 is a nice vehicle for street and highway driving. If you're thinking about off road use or NASCAR, it's not for you. But it's smartly put together and handles extremely well. I own one and it was a tough choice between the RAV$ and CRV but I preferred the styling of the RAV4. But taste is an individual thing and I'm sure many would disagree with me. In the end you only have to satisfy yourself. Anyway, good luck to those of you who are planning to purchase a 2002 CRV. I can't see how you can go wrong with either SUV. I've enjoyed reading the various opinions and comments on this message board over the past few months.
Actually, the last generation RAV4 was a better light off-roader than the CR-V. At least Edmunds thought so. We talk ground clearance an awful lot, but there's something to be said for a short wheelbase and tight turning circle.
Varmit- Plus it was available as a 2-door model. I've seen pictures of the new Rav4 in 2-door trim and it looks nice. It reminds me of a small Mitsubishi Shogun.
I just wonder why they don't bring the 2-door models over...
I wasn't fond of the previous RAV4's styling, but the new one got it right. Sure, varmit, it looks remote-controlled, but I like remote-controlled toys. The Full-Time 4WD and curb weight of only 2900 lbs (2700 lbs for older ones) are probably very useful in keeping yourself from bogging down offroad. But I think the best thing is that it's the most environmentally friendly SUV you can buy that relies on internal combustion. It's too bad the options pricing scheme continues to make the CR-V look better in the value department.
Keep in mind that gearing also plays a big role in 0-60 numbers, not just engine power. If I'm not mistaken, the 5-speed on the CR-V is geared relatively short. The trade off is between brisk acceleration and relaxed crusing at highway speeds.
I wouldn't be suprised if Honda decides to gear the 5-speed CR-V a little taller this time to reduce highway driving noise now that the engine is bigger.
Aside from 0-60 numbers, I'd also be interested in the torque curve especially when looking at SUVs.
I haven't investigated the new RAV4's; is it any bigger inside? I eliminated the previous RAV4 from contention a few years ago when I couldn't fit my fat behind in the driver's seat - waaaay too small. Never even made it to a test-drive.
Diploid - You and I have very different tastes. I was happy to see the 2 door RAV go the way of the Dodo. I thought Toyota was embarassing themselves. :-) Beauty... Eyes...Beholder...
Kens - Yes, gearing is as important as hp when it comes to acceleration. However, I don't think a tradeoff is required. It's possible to have short 1st and 2nd gears without also having a tall 5th. In the current CR-V, they kept them all short because the torque curve gets interesting around 3K. With 5th spinning at that rpm, it allows for best passing power at highway speed. I would have prefered that 5th were a taller gear (if I want to pass, I'll downshift), but Honda wasn't listening to me back then. ;-)
The torque curves for the 2.0 i-VTEC variants are all pretty flat. The Stream puts out max torque from about 2 - 4.5K. I don't recall what it is the Civic TR or the RSXs. I reread the message attributed to C&D and saw that it specifies an i-VTEC block. So far, so good.
Spy - The back of the new RAV4 is a little better, but not much.
Comments
The Vue is supposed to get 30/35 mpg? Wow, you sure? That must be with the 4 cylinder and the CVT.
The L series sedan with the same 4 banger and a manual gets 25/33, and it's lighter and more aerodynamic. I would expect 22/30 or so, maybe 21/28 with AWD.
Honda moved assembly of the Accords to the US without any damage to their reliability record, so I don't see why they can't do the same in the UK. It would be hard to measure, though, if they send both UK and Japan-built models here.
-juice
1. Do I pay the residual on my CR-V and keep it?
2. Do I turn it in and get a 2002 CR-V?
3. Do I look into alternatives?
I haven't done too much research yet on option #1. This would be the economical option for sure: buying a three-yr. old, avg. miles, very reliable (STILL have not had one problem with it) CR-V at a great price. Also, since the trade-in value has held up so well, I'm guessing I could make a little money on it by paying it off and selling it.
Option #2, the jury's still out. The spy shots and preliminary info of the new CR-V have been frankly underwhelming. Unless the power is significantly upgraded, I'm not sure I'd buy another one.
Option #3, there are a lot more choices out there today than there were three years ago, which is a good thing. Back then, at least for me, the choices boiled down to the CR-V and the Forester. Now there are plenty of new entrants, like the Liberty, Xterra, Triscape, etc.
When you have to make a sudden swerve, the weight transfers forward, and the tail becomes even lighter, causing it to swing out. To the average driver, sudden oversteer often results in an accident. There is no AWD system than can compensate for it like a stability control system (which as you know, uses brakes and throttle modulation).
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
When I mentioned the LSD, I was getting at the ability to transfer torque from side to side.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/20000619/press018552.html
Click here
If it is the real thing, then Honda might as well call it a mechanical redesign and minor bosdy restyling. Of course, isn't that pretty much Honda's SOP?
On another copy of that same pic there is a label at the bottom. Someone recognized it as belonging to a Vince Burlap. I guess this guy has done a number of fake spy pics seen in other forums.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/racoon/
i am pretty happy with the vehicle, sometimes, when i have 4 passengers i wish it had more horses, other than that it is fine piece of machinery
Bob
The C- and D-pillars in that "enhanced" photo look very fake. You can tell there is a black rectangle around it.
I agree with Drew on the value of VSA. Car & Driver took four wagons out in the snow, and 3 out of the 4 plowed into snow banks in their tests. These are professionals, crashing, basically.
The only one that didn't? The Outback VDC, because at the time it did not have an "off" switch for the traction/stability control. It does for 2002, funny enough.
I also saw a live demo at the M-B PowerTrip event. A pro driver took a coupe at 50mph through a slalom and got sideways with the feature turned off.
Then they turned it on and repeated the slalom at 60mph. It was wild, with a quick chirp of the tires here and there, but he made it! 10mph faster!
A well programmed systems allows you to go faster and more safely. I was impressed!
-juice
The article claims 160 HP and 162 ft lbs from a 2.4L 4 cyl. That would help explain the hefty Haulmark trailer we've seen in the other pics.
Slugline posted the image at the CR-V IX, but the quality is poor (photo of a magazine page).
Notice that the rear mounted spare is missing from some of the pictures???
http://users.ev1.net/~aurelio/temp/2002crv.jpg
The 2.0l from Europe makes enough horsepower, but SUVs are supposed to haul stuff, so torque would be a real blessing.
Great news, then.
-juice
Not that the 2002 CR-V won't fly off the lots anyway, no matter how they are equipped. It's amazing the previous gen are still selling so well!
Now if they came out with a Type-R CR-V, that would be a different story...
As much as I don't like the modest increase in horsepower, I think the new CR-V looks really good. I'm hoping body colored bumpers would be available.
154Hp in a Honda 2.0l or even a 2.2l I-4 will not compare in the "grunt" department.
I am really hoping that the 168HP 2.4l rumor is true:>)
My old college buddy got one and took me for a ride. Nice!
The 2003 Forester is coming soon, so the base 165hp engine may creep up a bit. My guess is it'll get about 170hp with some mild form of variable valve timing.
Plus there will be an upgrade option, probably the H6 or a light pressure turbo for the 2.5l. Either way, it'll have 200hp or more, and likely lead the class in power/weight ratio.
So there would still be room for a CR-V Type R. A V6 is doubtful, but why not VTEC that 2.4l? I bet it would be pretty sweet.
-juice
I wish some firm info about the new CR-V would come out. If the new CR-V is only going to be in the 160hp range, I will probably not consider it.
That Liberty looks awful nice. I've always been a big Jeep fan, but the scary part is the unknown reliability factor...
Honda is supposed to have all domestic vehicles meet 2010 emmisions and fuel efficiency specs. They've been saying that the i-VTEC engines are the way to meet that goal. Unless they are going to give us Americans a big block and keep the 2.0 at home (not likely), then I'd guess that the 2.4 would use the same technology.
The 2.0 in the Stream puts out 154 hp. With an extra .4 liters to play with, Honda has some room for tweaking. Since the HP output is only in the 160 range, I'd guess that it's tuned for a very broad torque curve.
I'm still placing any bets on a 2.4 block, though.
I'm hopeful that the new plant DC built for the Liberty will have some effect on quality. The fact that no major reported problems have been reported so far after ~3 months is a good sign (in contrast to the Triscape)
Ken
Bob
The mini-ute market has leap-frogged the CR-V over the past few years in terms of power. With several newer models out there (Escape, Xterra, Liberty) with 200+ hp available, 160 hp seems like kind of a half-hearted effort. I guess until we have solid info, I should reserve judgement!
My guess is Honda is trying to bridge the gap between "mini" and "small". Personally, I believe that is one reason why the CR-V is still selling well. It has the capacity of a small ute, but the economy of a mini. The fact that it lacks the towing power of the 6 cyl competition is a problem, but not one that greatly effects sales.
My wants and needs are a little different this time around than they were three years ago though. I guess I'm disappointed that Honda doesn't have something out there for me. My spouse and I were actually considering an MDX, but both having fallen victim to Silly Valley layoffs in the past six months, our sights have been re-set lower due to the economic uncertainty. I think the Honda-badged MDX is probably what we want, if only it were gonna be available...
I'm in a similar boat (new car interest-wise). When I got the CR-V, I had one dog, a few long legged friends to take camping, and a good deal less cash. Now I've got more of the above. The needs have expanded with two dogs, a group of highschool kids to take everywhere, and I can afford a bit more. The Honda MDX clone would be a better fit if I were buying now.
160hp for the new CR-V doesn't sound like something to write home about, but I'd like to see some performance numbers also. I remember reading a comparison test from AutoWorld Weekly where they compared a Rav4, CR-V and Tribute (4 cylinder), and the 4-year old CR-V was fastest to 60mph compared to the two newer competitors!
If assuming that 160hp & 160lb-ft torque figures are true, the new CR-V would be 20hp & 40lb-ft torque stronger. I just have a feeling that this would be adequate power for the CR-V to reach 60mph as fast as the V-6 powered Escape.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Condit probably used a car to transport the body, yeah. it is car related. Every web site, from cars to finance has Condit and Connie on front page today.
Gotta 'nother two days to dream about my new fleet of limos....
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
The '01 RAV4 is a very well-done package, giving the feeling of "a sense of total integration", as one magazine reviewer wrote, and "the most fun-to-drive SUV". It is adequately powered in real-world, day-to-day use.
It's just not for everyone.
Diploid - That comparison of the RAV4, CR-V, and Tribute doesn't surprise me. While there is reason to complain about torque, the CR-V's acceleration figures have always been pretty good. You just need to rev it. In fact, while the automatic is a bit pokey, the 5 speed CR-V has been clocked at 8.6, 8.9, and 9.1 secs in 0-60 runs. Unless the new model has put on significant weight, those 160's numbers should be adequate.
This is where I'm hoping that the new CR-V will excel. Its looks reminds me of a Rav4, but it will be bigger and more powerful.
But I would further wait to see what the new Forester has to offer before I make any buying decision.
I just wonder why they don't bring the 2-door models over...
I wouldn't be suprised if Honda decides to gear the 5-speed CR-V a little taller this time to reduce highway driving noise now that the engine is bigger.
Aside from 0-60 numbers, I'd also be interested in the torque curve especially when looking at SUVs.
Ken
Kens - Yes, gearing is as important as hp when it comes to acceleration. However, I don't think a tradeoff is required. It's possible to have short 1st and 2nd gears without also having a tall 5th. In the current CR-V, they kept them all short because the torque curve gets interesting around 3K. With 5th spinning at that rpm, it allows for best passing power at highway speed. I would have prefered that 5th were a taller gear (if I want to pass, I'll downshift), but Honda wasn't listening to me back then. ;-)
The torque curves for the 2.0 i-VTEC variants are all pretty flat. The Stream puts out max torque from about 2 - 4.5K. I don't recall what it is the Civic TR or the RSXs. I reread the message attributed to C&D and saw that it specifies an i-VTEC block. So far, so good.
Spy - The back of the new RAV4 is a little better, but not much.